JurisAssist Uganda Case Law
Uganda
Sign in
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

Search and filter Uganda case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Civil Procedure [2016] UGCommC 40

Masaka Construction Co. Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority

Masaka Construction Co. Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 94 of 2016) [2016] UGCommC 40 (6 May 2016)

Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Case number
Miscellaneous Application No. 94 of 2016

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success for the grant of a temporary injunction. The goods in question were restricted and had been imported in contravention of statutory requirements under the East African Community Customs Management Act and the Control of Agricultural Chemicals Act. The respondent, Uganda Revenue Authority, acted within its statutory powers to seize and forfeit the goods. The applicant, having purchased the goods while they were still under customs control and subject to forfeiture, could not acquire better ri…

Source excerpt

  • Temporary Injunctions
  • Customs Forfeiture
  • Restricted Goods
  • Locus Standi
  • Ownership Of Imported Goods
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2013] UGHCCD 26

Kayumba v Commissioner Customs Uganda Revenue Authority (Misc Cause No.49 of 2013)

Kayumba v Commissioner Customs Uganda Revenue Authority (Misc Cause No.49 of 2013) [2013] UGHCCD 26 (24 February 2013)

Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number
Misc Cause No.49 of 2013

The court found that the Applicant lawfully owned the ivory and had declared it at the Bunagana Customs Post while in transit from DRC to Mombasa, Kenya. The Respondent failed to rebut the Applicant's evidence of lawful transit and ownership, and did not discharge the burden of proof that the goods were uncustomed. The absence of criminal charges against the Applicant and the lack of evidence of illegality led the court to conclude that the seizure was unlawful. Goods in transit, not destined for Uganda, are not subject to Ugandan customs control or forfeiture. The court relied on statutory p…

Source excerpt

  • Release Of Seized Goods
  • Goods In Transit
  • Customs Enforcement
  • Ownership Of Cargo
  • Burden Of Proof
  • Restricted Goods
Read case analysis
Date unavailable
Civil Procedure [2014] UGHCCD 33

kiyumba emile v uganda revenue authority (Misc Cause No.49 of 2013)

kiyumba emile v uganda revenue authority (Misc Cause No.49 of 2013) [2014] UGHCCD 33 (24 February 2014)

Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number
Misc Cause No.49 of 2013

The court found that the Applicant proved lawful ownership and transit of the ivory, with supporting documentation that was not rebutted by the Respondent. The Respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving the goods were uncustomed or unlawfully imported. The seizure was not supported by a valid notice, and the goods were not destined for Uganda but were in transit to Mombasa, Kenya. The court held that goods in lawful transit are not subject to customs control or seizure under Ugandan law, and that the Respondent's actions were unjustified. The principle that courts cannot sanction il…

Source excerpt

  • Release Of Seized Goods
  • Goods In Transit
  • Customs Enforcement
  • Burden Of Proof
  • Restricted Goods
  • Wildlife Products
Read case analysis

About this JurisAssist collection

Uganda decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.