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
Mabirizi v Inspector General of Police & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 29 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 384 (31 May 2024)
The High Court dismissed Mabirizi’s judicial review application for lack of locus standi, holding he did not show direct or sufficient interest in the police directives.
Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Inspector General of Police and Another (Misc Cause 29 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 417 (31 May 2024)
The High Court dismissed this judicial review application for lack of locus standi, holding that the applicant lacked sufficient interest under Rule 3A.
Okello v Attorney General and Another (Civil Miscellaneous Application 168 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 528 (7 May 2024)
The High Court dismissed a contempt application because the applicant failed to prove proper service of the extracted court order on the respondents.
Validity Foundation v FIDA Uganda & 3 Others (Civil Application 264 of 2022) [2024] UGHCCD 68 (25 March 2024)
The High Court refused leave for Validity Foundation to appear as amicus curiae, finding it lacked neutrality and offered no novel legal assistance.
kalali v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 88 of 2022) [2024] UGHCCD 174 (1 March 2024)
The court held that while the right to access decent shelter is recognized within Uganda's constitutional and legislative framework, its realization is subject to the state's available resources and the principle of progressive realization. The evidence presented by the applicant was insufficient to prove that the respondent had unreasonably failed to provide adequate housing to junior police officers or that the state's interventions were unreasonable. The respondent demonstrated ongoing efforts and reasonable policy measures to address the housing deficit, including construction of new unit…
Source excerpt
Centre for Constitutional Governance (CCG) and 2 Others v Uganda Communications Commission and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 152 of 2019) [2024] UGHCCD 128 (22 January 2024)
The court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate a direct or sufficient interest in the administrative decision of the Uganda Communications Commission to warrant judicial review. The court emphasized that being human rights advocates or organizations with a general mandate to promote rule of law and good governance does not, in itself, satisfy the objective threshold for standing under Rule 3A of the Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules, 2019. The court relied on established case law, which requires an applicant to show an objectively defined interest in the impugned decisi…
Source excerpt
Candia v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 158 of 2018) [2024] UGHCCD 40 (18 January 2024)
The High Court found that inaccessible court premises violated disability rights and the applicant advocate’s right to practice his profession, and ordered progressive accessibility measures.
Health Equity and Policy Initiative (HEAPI) v Hon. Dr. Jane Ruth Aceng Ocero , Minister of Health & Attorney General of Uganda (Miscellaneous Cause 210 of 2018) [2024] UGHCCD 24 (16 January 2024)
The court found that the Respondents, by failing to enact binding legislation to regulate and standardize levies, rates, and pricing of medical services in private health facilities, have violated and continue to threaten the right to health of patients in Uganda. The existing guidelines and codes lack punitive force and do not substitute for statutory regulation. The court took judicial notice of the notorious disparities and abuses in private health charges and held that the state has a constitutional and international obligation to ensure accessibility and affordability of health services.…
Source excerpt
Bwengye and 13 v Attorney General (HCT-05-CV-MC 19 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 200 (20 December 2023)
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…
Source excerpt
Bwengye Deusdedit v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 19 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 199 (20 December 2023)
The application was dismissed on two principal grounds. First, the motion failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of 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 itemise the grounds 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. The orders sought by the Applic…
Source excerpt
