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
Commercial And Corporate [2016] UGCommC 202

Unidron Ltd & Ors v Attorney General

Unidron Ltd & Ors v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 4 of 2007) [2016] UGCommC 202 (28 October 2016)

Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Case number
Civil Suit No. 4 of 2007

The court found that the plaintiffs were proved creditors of public enterprises liquidated under the PERD Statute. Although the statute did not expressly provide for government liability where liquidation proceeds were insufficient, the court relied on binding precedent (Specioza Kalungi & 62 Others v Attorney General) to hold that the Minister of Finance and the Divesture and Reform Implementation Committee have a statutory duty to seek budgetary support and pay such creditors. The Development Credit Agreement was deemed incorporated by reference, reinforcing the duty to pay. Ex gratia payme…

Source excerpt

  • Public Enterprise Liquidation
  • Creditor Claims
  • Government Liability
  • Statutory Duties
  • Budgetary Support
  • Interest Awards
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2014] UGHCCD 3

Semakula & Ors v Attorney General

Semakula & Ors v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 237 of 2010) [2014] UGHCCD 3 (8 January 2014)

Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number
Civil Suit No. 237 of 2010

The court held that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action because it failed to plead that the Produce Marketing Board, as a public enterprise, had been sold and that the proceeds of its liquidation were deposited in the divestiture account as required by Section 23(4) of the PERD Act. The absence of these essential averments rendered the plaint defective and incapable of founding a cause of action against the government for the claimed terminal benefits. The court emphasized that strict compliance with statutory requirements is necessary, and that a plaint which does not allege all ma…

Source excerpt

  • Cause Of Action
  • Public Enterprise Liquidation
  • Divestiture Account
  • Pleadings Requirements
  • Government Liability
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2009] UGCA 64

Attorney General v L. Indiron and Others

Attorney General v L. Indiron and Others (CIVIL APPEAL NO.4 OF 2009) [2009] UGCA 64 (1 October 2009)

Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Case number
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4 OF 2009
Judge
Byamugisha, JA, Twinomujuni, JA, Kavuma, JA

The Court of Appeal held that the question of whether the consolidated suits were time barred could not be determined as a pure point of law because it required ascertainment of facts, specifically regarding the completion of the divestiture process and compliance with Supreme Court orders in SCCA No. 43 of 1995. The court affirmed that under Section 41 of the PERD Act, government policy on divestiture prevails over other laws, including limitation statutes, to allow the policy to be operationalised. Therefore, limitation could only begin to run once the divestiture process was completed, whi…

Source excerpt

  • Limitation Periods
  • Preliminary Objection
  • Public Enterprise Liquidation
  • Creditor Claims
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.