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
Twangyeirwa v Kawezi and Another (Civil Appeal 46 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 1059 (7 November 2024)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against refusal to amend a defense and reopen a land case, finding the application was late, unjustified, and aimed at filling gaps.
Hon. Justice Anup Singh v Umeme Limited (Miscellaneous Application 1191 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCD 167 (25 October 2024)
The High Court allowed the applicant to reopen his case to tender original bungalow plans as fresh evidence, and ordered costs in the cause.
Mukula v Nassanga (Miscellaneous Application 186 of 2023) [2023] UGHCFD 152 (29 March 2023)
The High Court dismissed an application to reopen a family case and admit NIRA evidence on maternity, holding the applicant had not shown sufficient reason to bypass available scientific proof.
Luvutu Kamya ( suing through his lawful attorney Ssemugwe) v Mukwaya and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 514 of 2022) [2022] UGHCLD 142 (5 August 2022)
The court found that while the applicant and his counsel were responsible for repeated adjournments and non-compliance with court orders, the overriding interest of substantive justice required that the applicant be given an opportunity to present his case fully. The court emphasized that mistakes of counsel should not be visited on the litigant where possible, and that the main purpose of litigation is to have disputes determined on their merits. Accordingly, the application to reopen the plaintiff's case was allowed, subject to the applicant paying the costs of the application to the respon…
Source excerpt
Ericson v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. TAT 67 of 2021) [2021] UGTAT 11 (30 December 2021)
The Tribunal determined that while procedural rules and finality of proceedings are important, the overriding principle is the administration of substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities, as mandated by Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution and Section 22(2) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act. The Tribunal found that the respondent had not called any witnesses and would not suffer prejudice if the applicant were allowed to re-open its case and tender additional documents, subject to admissibility rules. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof rests on the applicant, and…
Source excerpt
Tolit Vs Otto (Civil Revision No. 002 of 2019) [2019] UGHCCD 83 (11 April 2019)
The High Court upheld closure of the plaintiff’s case after repeated adjournments and dismissed a revision complaint, finding no basis for retrial or reopening.
Mundua v Central Nile Transporters Association (MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL REVISION No. 0003 OF 2017) [2017] UGHCCD 177 (21 December 2017)
High Court review of a magistrate’s decision to add issues and seek further input after hearing closed, addressing the proper limits of amicus curiae and issue-framing.
