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: 1 court collection
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 04:18 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

15 Sept 2023

Commercial And Corporate [2023] UGCommC 255

Mandela Auto Spares Limited v Lawson

Mandela Auto Spares Limited v Lawson (Miscellaneous Cause 47 of 2021) [2023] UGCommC 255 (15 September 2023)

Court: Commercial Court of Uganda
Case number: Miscellaneous Cause 47 of 2021
Judge: Anna B. Mugenyi, J

The court found that the arbitral award was delivered well beyond the statutory two-month period prescribed by section 31(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and that the arbitrator failed to properly extend the time in writing as required by law and the ICAMEK Rules. The purported extension within the award itself did not satisfy the statutory requirements, and no notification was given to the parties or registrar. Furthermore, the arbitrator awarded payment under quantum meruit for work that was expressly found to be outside the scope of the contract between the parties, which const…

Source excerpt

Arbitral Award Setting Aside
Quantum Meruit Claims
Contractual Scope Of Arbitration
Time Limits For Award

Read case analysis

3 Mar 2017

Commercial And Corporate [2017] UGCommC 22

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…