Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 02:54 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

13 Mar 2024

Civil Procedure [2024] UGSC 10

Adumo & Another v Basiima & 2 Others

Adumo & Another v Basiima & 2 Others (Civil Application 27 of 2023) [2024] UGSC 10 (13 March 2024)

Court: Supreme Court of Uganda
Case number: Civil Application 27 of 2023
Judge: Mike Chibita, JSC

The court determined that, pursuant to Rule 50(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules, a single judge does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for stay of execution. The application must be heard by the full bench. Additionally, the oral application for an interim stay was declined because it was not properly before the court, as Rule 42(1) and 42(2) require all applications to be by motion stating the grounds. The court found that there was a procedural oversight in scheduling the matter before a single judge and directed that the substantive application be rescheduled for h…

Source excerpt

Stay Of Execution
Jurisdiction Of Single Judge
Procedural Requirements For Applications

Read case analysis

20 Dec 2023

Constitutional Law [2023] UGHC 200

Bwengye and 13 v Attorney General (HCT-05-CV-MC 19 of 2022)

Bwengye and 13 v Attorney General (HCT-05-CV-MC 19 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 200 (20 December 2023)

Court: High Court of Uganda
Case number: HCT-05-CV-MC 19 of 2022
Judge: Allan Nshimye, J

The application was dismissed on two principal grounds. First, the motion failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements under Rule 8(1)(d) of the Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, SI No.31 of 2019, as it did not itemize the grounds for the application in the motion itself, rendering it incompetent. Second, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to declare statutory provisions invalid for inconsistency with the Constitution; such jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the Constitutional Court under Article 137 of the Constitution. T…