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
Owora v Magode Ikuya and Others (CIVIL SUIT NO.0030 OF 2022) [2024] UGHC 1238 (7 November 2024)
The High Court dismissed a land suit as time barred, holding the cause of action arose in 1999 and no limitation exception was properly pleaded.
Ekeu & Another v Attorney General (Taxation Appeal 1 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 668 (7 May 2024)
The court held that the Assistant Registrar erred by applying the outdated Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules S.I 267-4 instead of the 2018 Amendment Regulations, as the judgment awarding costs was delivered in 2023. The applicable law for taxation is that in force at the time of judgment, not at the time of suit filing. Furthermore, the Assistant Registrar erred by excluding damages and interest from the value of the subject matter, contrary to established legal principles that require instruction fees to be calculated on the total judgment sum, including all awarded amount…
Source excerpt
Airtel Uganda Limited v Haji Musa (Miscellaneous Appeal 6 of 2023) [2023] UGHC 151 (10 November 2023)
The court held that the liability to pay costs arises when the court makes an order for costs, not when the bill of costs is filed or taxed. Since the order for costs in this case was made on 3/8/2017, prior to the commencement of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations, 2018 (S.I No.7 of 2018), the applicable law for taxation is the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I No.267-4 of 2000. The Taxing Master erred in applying the 2018 Regulations, and the award of shs. 7,585,000 was therefore erroneous. The appeal was allowed, the taxe…
Source excerpt
Byangasha alias Ndikumwami and Another v Habiyakare (Civil Appeal 8 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 73 (6 June 2023)
The court held that the applicable law for taxation of costs is the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI No. 267-4, which was in force at the time the suit was instituted in 2008. The amendment by SI No. 7 of 2018 does not apply retrospectively, as there is no clear legislative intent for such application. The taxing master erred by applying the amended regulations and awarding costs for dates when counsel did not attend court. After reviewing the bill of costs and the record, the court deducted UgX 2,315,000 from the taxed amount, allowing the bill at UgX 10,167,500.…
Source excerpt
Nakabuye vKalule and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 41 of 2020) [2023] UGHCLD 85 (31 March 2023)
The High Court upheld the appeal in part, found the taxation law had been wrongly applied, reduced instruction fees, and sent the bill back for retaxation.
Mayanja and 7 Others v Wantante and 5 Others (Civil Suit No. 497 of 2018) [2023] UGHCLD 30 (10 February 2023)
The court held that the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2019, including Order 11A rule 1(2) on summons for directions and abatement, do not apply retrospectively to suits filed before their commencement unless expressly stated. Civil Suit No. 497 of 2018 was filed before the amendment came into force, and there is no express or implied intention in the rules to apply them retrospectively. Therefore, the suit cannot be deemed to have abated under the amended rules. The applicable law is Order XVII rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which allows for dismissal for want of prosecution only a…
Source excerpt
Mjawasi and Others v A.G. of Republic of Kenya (Reference 2 of 2010) [2011] EACJ 10 (29 September 2011) (First Instance Division)
The Court held that while it has jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Treaty and the Reference is not barred by res judicata or the requirement to exhaust local remedies, the acts and omissions complained of by the applicants occurred before the Treaty entered into force in 2000. There is no indication in the Treaty or established by the applicants that it was intended to apply retrospectively. Accordingly, the Reference is not admissible as the Treaty cannot be invoked to address acts or omissions predating its entry into force. The Court therefore struck out the Reference on the ground o…
Source excerpt
Attorney General v Henry Waibale and Others (Miscellaneous Application No 582 of 2005) (Miscellaneous Application No 582 of 2005) [2006] UGHC 27 (17 July 2006)
The High Court held that SI 80 of 2000 could apply to pension claims filed after it commenced, and that Article 254 protects unpaid pension rights.
Parmar v Kapoor and Another (Civil Appeal No. 890 of 1950) [1951] EACA 325 (1 January 1951)
The East African Court of Appeal held that pre-1949 sub-letting of part of premises did not justify eviction under the 1949 Ordinance, and dismissed the landlord’s appeal.
