Uganda Case Law

Mbale District Local Government v Samuel Wegoye Advocates

Mbale District Local Government v Samuel Wegoye Advocates (Miscellaneous Application 9 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 257 (3 May 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 9 of 2024

Judge

Lubega, J

The High Court at Mbale set aside a consent judgment after finding mistake in the amount agreed and that local government officials lacked authority without Attorney General clearance.

• Consent Judgment Review
• Advocate Client Bills
• Public Procurement Compliance
• Local Government Contracts
• Consent-judgment-review
• Advocate-client-costs

Acungwire v Mumtaz Kassam and Others

Acungwire v Mumtaz Kassam and Others (Civil Suit No. 339 of 2019) [2023] UGHCLD 41 (28 February 2023)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit No. 339 of 2019

Judge

Bernard Namanya, J

The court found that the DAPCB, as a public body, is subject to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act (2003) and failed to provide evidence of compliance in procuring the legal services of M/s. Guma & Co Advocates. On the authority of Attorney General & Hon. Nyombi Peter v. Uganda Law Society, the court held that such non-compliance renders the representation illegal. Furthermore, the court determined that M/s. Guma & Co Advocates' simultaneous representation of both the DAPCB and the plaintiff (Justice Acungwire), who are in a legal dispute over the same property, creates…

Source excerpt

• Conflict Of Interest
• Legal Representation
• Public Procurement Compliance
• Allocation Of Expropriated Property

Mpondwa Cross Boarders Traders Cooperatives Society Limited v Isango Subcounty Local Government

Mpondwa Cross Boarders Traders Cooperatives Society Limited v Isango Subcounty Local Government (Miscellaneous Application No. 106 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 266 (16 November 2022)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 106 of 2022

Judge

Mugabo, J

The court found that while the respondent's naming was a misnomer, it did not render the entity fictitious or incapable of suing, as the sub-county council exists and is recognised under the Local Governments Act. However, the respondent failed to prove exclusive possession of the suit land, which is registered in the names of Kasese District Local Government, and thus did not disclose a reasonable cause of action for trespass. The hurried creation of the Isango cattle market was irregular and intended to frustrate the district's revenue collection and the applicant's contract. The commenceme…

Source excerpt

• Local Government Councils
• Public Procurement Compliance
• Trespass To Land
• Market Establishment Authority
• Corporate Personality
• Council Resolution Requirements

Fred Watuwa Kulyatte v Dairy Development Authority

Fred Watuwa Kulyatte v Dairy Development Authority (Civil Suit No. 125 of 2019) [2021] UGHCLD 76 (30 March 2021)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit No. 125 of 2019

Judge

Nkonge, J

The High Court held that a land transaction with a public entity was illegal for noncompliance with the PPDA Act and dismissed both the suit and counterclaim.

• Public Procurement Compliance
• Illegality Of Contract
• Disposal Of Public Assets
• Cause Of Action
• Enforceability Of Contract
• Remedies In Land Disputes

Magezi v National Medical Stores (Taxation Reference 1 of 2015)

Magezi v National Medical Stores (Taxation Reference 1 of 2015) [2017] EACJ 93 (21 September 2017) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Taxation Reference 1 of 2015

Judge

Jundu JA, Lenaola JA, Ntezilyayo JA

The Court held that the issue of alleged illegality in the procurement of the respondent's counsel's services was raised too late, without proper pleadings or evidence, and could not be determined at the taxation reference stage without violating principles of fair hearing and due process. The Court found that the Taxing Officer had properly exercised her discretion, applied the correct legal principles, and provided reasoned justification for the amounts awarded for instruction fees and disbursements. The applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, principle, or manifest excessiveness…

Source excerpt

• Taxation Of Costs
• Public Procurement Compliance
• Costs Awards
• Judicial Review Of Taxation
• Advocate Instruction Fees

Messrs Sendege Senyondo & Co Advocates v Kampala Capital City Authority

Messrs Sendege Senyondo & Co Advocates v Kampala Capital City Authority (Civil Suit No. 147 of 2016) [2017] UGCommC 22 (3 March 2017)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit No. 147 of 2016

The court held that the agreement dated 11th October 1996 was enforceable as it provided for remuneration according to statutory scales, not as a gross sum or salary, and thus was not subject to Section 51 of the Advocates Act. For claims after 1st January 2006, the court found that non-compliance with public procurement laws was the responsibility of the Defendant's officials, not the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff, having rendered services upon written instructions and to the Defendant's benefit, was entitled to payment under quantum meruit. The court rejected the Defendant's attempt to…

Source excerpt

• Advocate Remuneration Agreements
• Quantum Meruit Claims
• Public Procurement Compliance
• Lien On Client Files
• Local Government Contracts