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, 03:03 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

15 Apr 2024

Civil Procedure [2024] UGHC 169

Hon. Ssewante & 15 Others v Yudaya & 3 Others

Hon. Ssewante & 15 Others v Yudaya & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 25 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 169 (15 April 2024)

Court: High Court of Uganda
Case number: Miscellaneous Application 25 of 2024
Judge: Bukirwa, J

The court found that while Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations prohibits advocates from appearing as counsel where they are likely to be required as witnesses, the applicants did not provide direct evidence that the advocates in question were listed as witnesses or intended to testify. However, given that both advocates are members of the General Assembly of the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council—the supreme governing organ whose activities are central to the dispute—the court determined there is an apparent conflict of interest. Their dual role as members and instruct…

Source excerpt

Conflict Of Interest
Advocate Professional Conduct
Fiduciary Duties
Representation Disqualification

Read case analysis

13 Nov 2023

Civil Procedure [2023] UGHCLD 380

Tebeingana v Kwesigabo,Bamwine and Walubiri Advocates and Another

Tebeingana v Kwesigabo,Bamwine and Walubiri Advocates and Another (Miscellaneous Application 1132 of 2023) [2023] UGHCLD 380 (13 November 2023)

Court: HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number: Miscellaneous Application 1132 of 2023
Judge: Basaza, J

The court found that there was no evidence that Mr. Tibeingana ever retained or employed KBW Advocates for professional advice or representation, nor was he ever liable to pay them any costs. All documentary evidence, including the MoU and related correspondence, indicated that KBW Advocates acted solely for Mr. Mugumya and his late mother, not for Mr. Tibeingana. The applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish an advocate-client or fiduciary relationship. Consequently, there was no conflict of interest or breach of professional conduct regulations by KBW Advocates…