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: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 03:29 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

7 May 2024

Constitutional Law [2024] UGCC 11

Twase v Attorney General

Twase v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition 45 of 2017) [2024] UGCC 11 (7 May 2024)

Court: Constitutional Court of Uganda
Case number: Constitutional Petition 45 of 2017
Judge: Buteera, DCJ, Bamugemereire, JCC, Kibeedi Mutangula, JCC, Mulyagonja, JCC, Monica K. Mugenyi, JCC

The Constitutional Court's jurisdiction is strictly limited to matters requiring interpretation of the Constitution. The obligations under Article 4 regarding translation, dissemination, and teaching of the Constitution are clear and unambiguous, requiring no interpretation. The Petitioner seeks enforcement of these obligations, not their interpretation. Therefore, the proper forum for such enforcement is the High Court under Article 50(1), not the Constitutional Court. The petition does not invoke the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court and must be dismissed.

Source excerpt

Jurisdiction Of Constitutional Court
Interpretation Vs Enforcement
State Obligations Under Article 4
Translation And Dissemination Of Constitution
Teaching Of Constitution
Remedies For Constitutional Breach

Read case analysis

5 Dec 2022

Constitutional Law [2022] UGHCCD 245

Bandonda V Captain Investments Ltd and Another

Bandonda V Captain Investments Ltd and Another (Civil Suit No. 493 of 2018) [2022] UGHCCD 245 (5 December 2022)

Court: HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number: Civil Suit No. 493 of 2018
Judge: Boniface Wamala, J

The court found that the Plaintiff's arrest and detention were unlawful as there was no reasonable suspicion of a criminal offence; the dispute was purely civil and commercial. The police, acting on the instigation of the 1st Defendant, effected an arrest and detention in violation of Article 23(1)(c) of the Constitution and Section 23(1) of the Police Act. The Plaintiff was detained beyond the constitutionally mandated 48 hours without being charged or released on bond, further violating his rights. Both Defendants were held vicariously liable for the actions of their officers and agents, as…