Uganda Case Law

Inspectorate of Government v Balondemu David (LCT No. 47 of 2024)

Inspectorate of Government v Balondemu David (LCT No. 47 of 2024) [2025] UGLCT 1 (27 March 2025)

Court

Leadership Code Tribunal of Uganda

Case number

LCT No. 47 of 2024

Judges

Karugonjo, Chairperson, Kiyingi, Deputy Chairperson, Okelowange, Panel Member, Bakunzi, Nalunga

The Tribunal found that the Respondent, as Chairperson of the Kampala District Land Board, is a leader within the meaning of the Leadership Code Act, specifically covered under paragraph 31 of the Second Schedule. The Act mandates all leaders specified therein to submit declarations of income, assets, and liabilities to the Inspectorate of Government, regardless of whether the office holder receives a salary, allowance, or no remuneration. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent's argument that only salaried government employees are required to declare, noting that the law is blind to the type o…

Source excerpt

• Leadership Code Compliance
• Asset Declaration Requirements
• Public Officer Definition
• Remedies For Breach
• Constitutional Interpretation Requests

Akurut Vs Emurot

Akurut Vs Emurot (Election Petition Appeal No. 40 of 2016) [2017] UGCA 17 (23 May 2017)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Election Petition Appeal No. 40 of 2016

The Court of Appeal found that the trial Judge erred in law by interpreting the Constitution, a function reserved for the Constitutional Court. The appellant, as a Commissioner of the Uganda Human Rights Commission, was not an employee required to resign 90 days prior to nomination under Article 80(4) and related statutory provisions. The distinction between members of constitutional commissions and employees was clear in both the Constitution and the Uganda Human Rights Commission Act. The trial Judge's nullification of the appellant's election was based on a misapplication of these provisio…

Source excerpt

• Nomination Requirements
• Public Officer Definition
• Constitutional Interpretation
• Service Of Process
• Election Nullification

Okello & Anor v Parliamentary Commission

Okello & Anor v Parliamentary Commission (Civil Suit No. 218 of 2014) [2016] UGHCCD 25 (5 April 2016)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit No. 218 of 2014

Judge

Musota, J

The High Court held that MPs of the 8th Parliament were fully paid for their five-year term and were not entitled to full May 2011 pay; the suit was dismissed with costs.

• Parliamentary Remuneration
• Public Officer Definition
• Pro Rata Payment
• Double Payment Avoidance
• Parliamentary-remuneration
• Pro-rata-payment

Ouma v Uganda (HCT-00-CN 12 of 2013)

Ouma v Uganda (HCT-00-CN 12 of 2013) [2014] UGHCACD 5 (8 April 2014)

Court

HC: Anti corruption Division (Uganda)

Case number

HCT-00-CN 12 of 2013

The High Court dismissed Ouma Adea’s appeal, holding that the corruption charge was properly framed and the evidence proved corrupt receipt of gratification.

• Corrupt Receipt Of Gratification
• Charge Sheet Defects
• Public Officer Definition
• Accomplice Evidence
• Contradictions In Evidence
• Corrupt-receipt-of-gratification

Mukasa v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCCS No. 528 of 2005)

Mukasa v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCCS No. 528 of 2005) [2007] UGHC 46 (21 August 2007)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

HCCS No. 528 of 2005

Judge

Arach-Amoko J

The court found that the plaintiff was employed on permanent and pensionable terms under the old HRMM and not on contract. The new HRMM provisions regarding gratuity at 15% were suspended due to financial constraints and never implemented for non-management staff. Therefore, the plaintiff was only entitled to the Long Service Award at 2.5% of basic annual salary, not the claimed gratuity. Regarding NSSF contributions, while the statutory duty to remit rests with the employer, the plaintiff may seek judicial review for mandamus but cannot recover the contributions directly in an ordinary suit.…

Source excerpt

• Gratuity Entitlement
• Nssf Contributions
• Pension Rights
• Public Officer Definition

Kwizera Eddie v Attorney General

Kwizera Eddie v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 14 of 2005) [2006] UGCA 2 (25 August 2006)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Constitutional Petition No. 14 of 2005

The court held that its role is to harmonise constitutional provisions and not to nullify any part of the Constitution. Article 80(4), which requires public officers and certain government employees to resign 90 days before nomination for parliamentary elections, was found to be inconsistent with articles 1(4) and 21(1) because it excludes the political class from this requirement, thereby creating inequality and discrimination in the electoral process. The court found that this omission gives the political class an unfair advantage and undermines the principle of free and fair elections. How…

Source excerpt

• Constitutional Interpretation
• Equality Before Law
• Electoral Rights
• Discrimination
• Public Officer Definition