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
Tumuramye v Tushemereirwe (Civil Application No. 96 of 2016) [2018] UGCA 14 (10 May 2018)
The Court of Appeal restored an appeal after finding the appellant and his counsel were not served with the hearing notice, which had gone to former advocates.
Motor Mart (U) Limited v Kanyomozi (Civil Application 6 of 1999) [1999] UGSC 39 (25 August 1999)
The Supreme Court of Uganda dismissed a reference against a single justice’s order allowing a late application to restore an appeal, finding no error in the exercise of discretion.
Kanyomozi v Motor Mart (U) Ltd [1999] UGSC 6 (12 February 1999)
The Supreme Court found that, although the delay in bringing the application was inordinate and the explanations for the delay were unsatisfactory, the overriding consideration was that injustice would result if the appeal was not heard on its merits. The court accepted that the applicant should not be penalized for the honest mistake or oversight of his counsel, and that damages against the advocate would not be a sufficient remedy. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules to grant an extension of time, allowing the applicant to file for restoration of the a…
Source excerpt
Uganda Co-operative Transport Union v Roko Construction Limited (Civil Application 12 of 1997) [1997] UGSC 22 (9 July 1997)
The Supreme Court set aside a single judge’s reinstatement order, but allowed restoration of the appeal because the applicant had acted promptly and court error affected the process.
Wasswa Semukutu & Co Ltd v Ochola & 3 ors [1991] UGSC 10 (27 February 1991)
The Supreme Court of Uganda set aside an ex parte judgment after finding invalid service of hearing notice, including service on a Sunday and a defective affidavit of service.
Rashid Kibirige v Dr. A.Lubega [1987] UGSC 4 (19 November 1987)
The Court found that the applicant's former counsel withdrew the appeal without the applicant's instructions, which was improper. The Court emphasized that an advocate must act strictly on client instructions and cannot unilaterally withdraw an appeal. The Court relied on established case law confirming that actions taken by counsel without authority, especially those prejudicing the client's substantive rights, may be set aside. The Court further held that Rule 67 of the Court of Appeal Rules is broad enough to permit restoration of an appeal withdrawn at hearing, not just in writing before…
Source excerpt
