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
Kakooza v Wakiso District Local Government (Civil Suit 387 of 2017) [2023] UGHCCD 174 (16 June 2023)
The High Court held that a prolonged interdiction of a public servant beyond the Standing Orders period was unlawful and awarded UGX 10 million in general damages.
Mutesi Aminah v Jinja City, Lorika Moses, Town Clerk Jinja City, Inspectorate General of Government, & Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 38 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 229 (24 February 2023)
The High Court held that interdiction is a temporary step pending investigations and not a final decision, so the judicial review application was dismissed.
Magomu v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 312 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 425 (13 January 2023)
The High Court rejected a judicial review challenge to a magistrate’s interdiction, holding the Chief Registrar acted lawfully and the 3-month limit did not apply after referral to the Commission.
Baguma v Sanyu (Misc Cause No. 7 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 134 (26 May 2022)
The court found that the Respondent, acting as Chief Administrative Officer, lawfully exercised her powers to interdict the Applicant in accordance with the Uganda Public Service Standing Orders, Public Service Act, and Local Government Act. The Applicant was informed of the reasons for interdiction and referred to police for investigation of alleged gross misconduct. The regulations empower the responsible officer to interdict and subsequently refer the matter to the Rewards and Sanctions Committee or other agencies. The Applicant failed to prove that the interdiction was motivated by bad fa…
Source excerpt
Barugahare v Kampala Capital City Authority & Another (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 413 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 117 (29 May 2020)
The court found that while the initial interdiction of the applicant was lawful and in accordance with the Public Service Standing Orders, the prolonged duration of the interdiction—exceeding three years—was unjustified and illegal. The Standing Orders require investigations to be completed within three or six months, depending on whether police or courts are involved. The respondents failed to provide any justifiable reason for the delay, and such inordinate delay amounted to an abuse of process and arbitrary exercise of power. The continued interdiction beyond the statutory period was there…
Source excerpt
Joel Cox Ojuko v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No.109 of 2004) (Miscellaneous Cause No.109 of 2004) [2005] UGHC 57 (10 October 2005)
The court found that the applicant was interdicted following criminal investigations by the police, which included an opportunity for him to provide explanations regarding the allegations. The Solicitor General acted within the powers conferred by Rule 36 of the Public Service Commission Regulations, and the Attorney General, as principal legal adviser to the government, was within his constitutional mandate to advise on the matter. The applicant's claim of denial of a fair hearing was rejected, as he had been heard during the police investigations and would have further opportunities before…
Source excerpt
Wycliff Kiggundu v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 27 of 1993) [1993] UGSC 22 (8 November 1993)
The Supreme Court held that the plaint should not have been rejected at the preliminary stage and reinstated the suit for trial.
Kiffundu v The Attorney General (Civil Appeal 27 of 1993) [1993] UGSC 39 (11 August 1993)
The Supreme Court held that the trial judge erred in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The plaint, as amended, disclosed sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action regarding the lawfulness of the appellant's interdiction and retirement from public service. The judge misconstrued Regulation 36 by suggesting that interdiction could be indefinite, failed to distinguish between disciplinary and retirement proceedings, and relied on extraneous facts not pleaded. The Court emphasized that questions of fact and law arising from the plaint required inve…
Source excerpt
