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
Kenlloyd Logistics (U) Limited v Fratch AG (Miscellaneous Cause 78 of 2023) [2025] UGCommC 16 (6 March 2025)
The High Court of Uganda set aside an arbitral award after finding the arbitrator failed to resolve disputes over an incomplete record of proceedings, creating apparent bias.
Obote David v Odora Yasoni (Civil Appeal 14 of 2023) [2023] UGHC 209 (20 September 2023)
The court determined that before the appeal can proceed, it is essential that duly signed and properly certified copies of the complete and accurate record of proceedings and judgments/rulings, as well as the main files of the relevant trial courts, be obtained and provided. The court observed potential duplicity or multiplicity of suits and appeals between the same parties and subject matter, which must be resolved as a preliminary issue. The absence of proper records precludes the hearing of the appeal, and the court directed compliance with the procedural requirements for certification and…
Source excerpt
Dr. Okech Abe and 3 Others v Dr. Wokorach and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 315 of 2019) [2022] UGCA 211 (12 July 2022)
The Court of Appeal held that the certified copy of proceedings was ready by 16th September 2019, as evidenced by the Registrar's stamp. The Registrar's subsequent certificate dated 12th November 2019 did not properly indicate the time required for preparation and delivery as required by Rule 83(2). The appeal was filed on 20th November 2019, which was five days outside the prescribed 60-day period. No application for extension of time was made. The Court found that the appeal was filed out of time and the Registrar's certificate could not be relied upon to extend the time for filing. The pre…
Source excerpt
KAC Chemicals & Paints (U) Ltd v 20 Cube Logistics (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1507 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 45 (29 June 2022)
The High Court declined to strike out an appeal, finding the respondent had diligently sought the typed record of proceedings and that delay was attributable to the court.
Semakula Musoke & Another v Nabamba & 2 Others [2020] UGSC 28 (24 September 2020)
The Supreme Court found that the respondents filed their Notice of Appeal 31 working days after the Court of Appeal judgment, well outside the 14-day period mandated by Rule 72(2) of the Supreme Court Rules. The Notice of Appeal was also not in the proper form, as it was headed as if filed in the Supreme Court rather than the Court of Appeal, contrary to the requirements of Form D in the First Schedule to the Rules. The Court held that these procedural requirements are mandatory and non-compliance renders the Notice of Appeal incompetent. The respondents' argument that errors of counsel shoul…
Source excerpt
Nyanzige & 9 Others v Mumwori & 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 132 of 2018) [2020] UGHC 85 (17 July 2020)
The High Court set aside an irregular dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution, holding that appeals are governed by Order 43 rule 31, not Order 17 rule 6.
Mutanda v City Council of Kampala (CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 50 OF 1998) [1999] UGCA 71 (11 January 1999)
The Court held that the time for lodging an appeal does not begin to run until a true and correct copy of the record of proceedings is supplied to the intended appellant. Where the record initially supplied is riddled with mistakes and not a true copy of the original proceedings, the period taken to correct such mistakes by the Registrar is excluded from the computation of time for filing the appeal. The Court distinguished the present case from Hannington Wasswa Semakutu & Co. v. Maria Onyango Ochola, noting that in the latter, the Supreme Court did not believe the appellant's claim that the…
Source excerpt
Skill Consultants v Pearl Flowers Limited (Civil Application 41 of 1996) [1997] UGSC 19 (7 August 1997)
The Supreme Court struck out an appeal as incompetent after finding late service of the notice of appeal and no leave for filing out of time.
Plaxeda v Libyan Arab Uganda Bank for Foreign Trade (Civil Application 6 of 1986) [1987] UGSC 5 (3 July 1987)
The Court found that the appellant took all necessary steps to prosecute the appeal by applying in writing for a copy of the proceedings within the required thirty-day period and making subsequent requests. The delay in lodging the appeal was caused by the High Court's failure to prepare and deliver the record of proceedings, not by any lack of diligence on the part of the appellant. The Court held that it would be a denial of justice to penalise the appellant for shortcomings of the court, and that the appellant was protected by the proviso to Rule 81. The failure to copy the initial request…
Source excerpt
