JurisAssist Uganda Case Law
Uganda
Sign in
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
3 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter Uganda case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Constitutional Law [2021] UGCC 16

Dr. Kamba Baleke v Attorney General and Another

Dr. Kamba Baleke v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2014) [2021] UGCC 16 (27 April 2021)

Court
Constitutional Court of Uganda
Case number
Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2014
Judge
Kibeedi Mutangula, JCC, Cheborion, JCC, Egonda-Ntende, JCC, Mulyagonja, JCC

The Constitutional Court found that the petition did not raise any questions requiring constitutional interpretation under Article 137. The alleged irregularities in the prosecution process, such as inclusion of alternative charges, endorsement of charge sheets, and conduct of concurrent trials, are matters for enforcement and redress in the trial courts or by appeal, not for constitutional interpretation. The Court emphasized that its jurisdiction is limited to interpretation of the Constitution and that enforcement of rights and remedies for procedural errors fall within the purview of the…

Source excerpt

  • Jurisdiction Of Constitutional Court
  • Fair Trial Rights
  • Double Jeopardy
  • Prosecutorial Discretion
  • Proper Parties To Suit
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2019] UGCA 34

Shafts sinkers of Uganda Vs The Commissioner geological surveys &mines Departments

Shafts sinkers of Uganda Vs The Commissioner geological surveys &mines Departments (Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2014) [2019] UGCA 34 (16 April 2019)

Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Case number
Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2014

The Court of Appeal held that judicial review proceedings against government departments must be instituted against the Attorney General, as mandated by Section 10 of the Government Proceedings Act and Article 119 of the Constitution. The Commissioner Geological Surveys and Mines Department is not a body corporate and cannot be sued directly in its official capacity. The trial judge was correct to dismiss the application on this ground, as the proceedings were not brought in the name of the Attorney General, rendering them unsustainable at law. The court emphasized that statutory agencies may…

Source excerpt

  • Judicial Review Proceedings
  • Government Liability
  • Proper Parties To Suit
  • Mandatory Procedural Requirements
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2017] UGHCLD 37

Chairperson School Management Committee of Nyangu Primary School (HCT-01-CV-LD-CA-0086/2014)

Chairperson School Management Committee of Nyangu Primary School (HCT-01-CV-LD-CA-0086/2014) [2017] UGHCLD 37 (23 March 2017)

Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
HCT-01-CV-LD-CA-0086/2014
Judge
Ojok, J

The appeal was incompetent as the appellant, Chairperson School Management Committee of Nyangu Primary School, is not a legal entity recognized by law and therefore lacked locus standi to institute the suit. The trial magistrate erred in entertaining the case from the onset, and the amendment to the plaint was also improper. The suit in the lower court was incompetent, rendering the appeal incompetent. Additionally, the first and second grounds of appeal were vague and struck out for offending procedural rules. The locus proceedings were found to be properly conducted, and there was no miscar…

Source excerpt

  • Locus Standi
  • Proper Parties To Suit
  • Conduct Of Locus In Quo
  • Ownership Of Land
  • Trespass
  • Remedies
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2002] UGCA 18

Attorney General v Kyonjokama Sam and Another

Attorney General v Kyonjokama Sam and Another (Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2002) [2002] UGCA 18 (20 May 2002)

Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Case number
Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2002
Judge
Mpagi-Bahigeine, JA, Twinomujuni, JA, Kavuma, JA

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Miscellaneous Cause No.13 of 2002 because the application raised questions of constitutional interpretation, which must be determined by the Constitutional Court under Article 137 of the Constitution. The Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Enforcement Procedure) Rules apply only to the Constitutional Court, not the High Court. Actions for enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 50 must be brought by plaint and not by notice of motion unless a substantive suit is pending. The appellant's procedure was erroneous…

Source excerpt

  • Jurisdiction Of High Court
  • Constitutional Interpretation
  • Enforcement Of Fundamental Rights
  • Proper Parties To Suit
  • Procedure For Constitutional Redress
Read case analysis

About this JurisAssist collection

Uganda decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.