Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Mbatidde v Sekirevu (Labour Dispute Misc.Appln. No 153 of 2023) [2025] UGIC 46 (13 June 2025)
The Industrial Court refused leave to amend a labour claim because the proposed amendments introduced new causes of action not referred by the labour officer.
National Social Security Fund v Kabuye Ibrahim and Others (Miscellaneous Application No 3331 of 2024) [2025] UGHCLD 54 (9 May 2025)
The court found that the applicant does not have an automatic right of appeal and must seek leave. Upon review of the draft memorandum of appeal and the grounds advanced, the court was persuaded that the proposed grounds merit serious consideration by the Court of Appeal, particularly regarding the propriety and extent of the amendments to the 9th Respondent's defence. The court held that the applicant demonstrated arguable grounds of appeal and that the issues raised are not frivolous. Therefore, leave to appeal was granted, with no order as to costs.
Source excerpt
Mambasa v Ibalu Associates Limited & Another (Civil Suit 61 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 657 (25 June 2024)
The Plaintiff's cause of action is primarily founded on grounds covered by Section 89(1) of the Tier 4 Microfinance Institutions and Money Lenders Act and Regulation 26 of the corresponding Regulations, namely excessive interest and unconscionable terms. Regulation 26 is mandatory and requires that any application to reopen a money lending transaction be brought by Notice of Motion, not by plaint. The Plaintiff's argument that the absence of a Money Lender's licence exempts the transaction from the procedural requirements is untenable, as the court must still apply the relevant money lending…
Source excerpt
Mboya and Another v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Suit 472 of 2017) [2023] UGHCCD 358 (21 November 2023)
The High Court determined that it does not have original jurisdiction to hear tax or customs disputes as a court of first instance. The proper procedure requires an aggrieved party to first seek review from the Commissioner of Uganda Revenue Authority under the East African Customs Management Act, 2004. If dissatisfied, the party must then appeal to the Tax Appeals Tribunal as mandated by the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act. Only after exhausting these avenues may the matter be brought before the High Court on appeal. The Plaintiffs failed to follow this statutory procedure after the dismissal of th…
Source excerpt
Ndawula v Tropical Bank Limited and Another (Misc Cause 332 of 2023) [2023] UGHCLD 397 (27 October 2023)
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirement under Section 167 of the Registration of Titles Act, which requires that an application for a vesting order must first be made to the Commissioner Land Registration. The court found no evidence that the applicant had exhausted this avenue before seeking relief from the High Court. The court emphasized that adherence to statutory procedure is essential to prevent redundancy of the Commissioner Land Registration's office and to manage case backlog. The affidavits in reply were not stru…
Source excerpt
Easy Save Supermarket Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 3 of 2022) [2023] UGTAT 55 (28 September 2023)
The tribunal held that the provisions of Section 15 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act are mandatory, requiring the applicant to deposit 30% of the tax in dispute before the application can be properly entertained. The applicant admitted to not paying the requisite sum, and no evidence was adduced to prove payment. The Supreme Court's decision in Uganda Projects Implementation and Management Centre v Uganda Revenue Authority, though concerning the VAT Act, was found to be applicable to the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, confirming the constitutionality and binding nature of the deposit requirement. A…
Source excerpt
Ahimbisibwe and Another v Commissioner Land Registration (Misc Cause 61 of 2022) [2023] UGHCLD 176 (5 July 2023)
The court found that the applicants failed to provide evidence that the Registrar or Commissioner Land Registration had made any decision on their application for a vesting order or that their application had been rejected. There was no documentation of follow-up or a response from the Registrar. According to section 167 of the Registration of Titles Act and the authority in Ddungu Charles v. Commissioner Land Registration, court intervention is only appropriate where the Registrar has refused or failed to act for a stated reason. Since the applicants did not demonstrate compliance with this…
Source excerpt
Otim v Akwanu (HCMA 35 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 317 (25 August 2022)
The court found that the applicant provided sufficient cause for the delay in filing the memorandum of appeal, specifically citing his illness and lack of legal representation as valid reasons. Medical evidence was adduced and accepted as proof of incapacity to act within the statutory period. The court applied a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice, noting that no negligence or lack of bona fides was imputed to the applicant. Accordingly, the dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2018 was set aside, and the applicant was granted leave to file and serve th…
Source excerpt
Kahamutima v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 51 of 2021) [2021] UGTAT 14 (21 September 2021)
The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application because the dispute had already been determined by the Magistrate's Court, making it res judicata. The Tribunal emphasized that once a matter is decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, it cannot be brought before another forum in a different form. Additionally, the applicant failed to follow the mandatory procedure under the East African Community Customs Management Act, which requires an aggrieved party to first apply to the Commissioner for review of a customs decision before approaching the Tribunal. Since the…
Source excerpt
The Registered Trustees of Freemansons Hall v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 51 of 2019) [2021] UGTAT 28 (29 July 2021)
The Tax Appeals Tribunal held that URA’s assessment was invalid because it failed to revoke a binding private ruling before taxing the sale, and it also miscomputed the gain.
