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
The Omukama of Tooro v Kagoro (HCT-01-LD-CR-0006-2017) [2025] UGHC 523 (14 July 2025)
The High Court refused to review its earlier revision ruling, holding that the alleged misapplication of authority and underlying illegality were not errors apparent on the record.
Dr. David Wilfred Ochan v Pauline Otika (Miscellaneous Application No. 104 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 419 (17 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to enlarge time and validate submissions after finding no credible explanation for a six-year delay and misuse of parallel remedies.
Dorina Akera v Jererimson Okema Opira and Irene Opira (Civil Appeal No. 194/ of 2023) [2025] UGHC 373 (4 June 2025)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate properly exercised discretion in granting review of the judgment in Civil Suit No. 034/2016. The respondents, as administrators of the estate of the late Opira Jeremiah Lucas, demonstrated a sufficient nexus and interest in the suit land, and their exclusion from the original proceedings constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. The court held that the principles of natural justice and substantive justice required that all parties with a legitimate interest be heard, especially in cases involving customary land tenure where boundar…
Source excerpt
Suzan Nabirye and Another v Zedek Microfinance Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 460 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 100 (23 May 2025)
The High Court granted a stay of execution pending review, but only on condition that the applicants pay the uncontested UGX 137,000,000 and deposit security.
Kalangwa v Senyama (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1622 OF 2021) [2025] UGHC 246 (30 April 2025)
The High Court dismissed a request to review its own judgment on appeal, holding it lacked jurisdiction to do so and awarding costs to the respondent.
Ntege v Tomusange Lasito and Others (MISC. APPLICATION NO 951 OF 2024) [2025] UGHC 245 (30 April 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to review a prior judgment, finding the relied-upon inventory was irrelevant or post-dated the decision and that a pending appeal barred review.
Kalanzi v Absa Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 1715 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 36 (13 March 2025)
The court found that while negative orders are not capable of being stayed, the impugned orders included positive orders for payment of money, which can be stayed. The applicant had pending suits and there was an imminent threat of execution, satisfying the requirements of Order 22 Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Although the applicant did not demonstrate that the respondent would be unable to refund the money if the review succeeded, the court recognized the applicant's contention of not being heard and the existence of triable issues in the review application. The balance of convenien…
Source excerpt
Rwabutaraka v Wakami (Civil Review 14 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 72 (27 February 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to review a prior judgment, holding that no error apparent on the record or other sufficient ground for review was shown.
The Kabaka of Buganda v Kibuule Ronald & Another (Civil Appeal 369 of 2021) [2025] UGCA 60 (24 February 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal after the parties failed to file submissions, leaving the court unable to determine the review dispute on the merits.
Kabwonkyezo & Another v Nabasa & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 207 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 63 (17 February 2025)
The court found that the applicants failed to prove they are beneficiaries of the estate of the late Beatrice Kyamulunga, as no evidence was adduced to establish their entitlement. The 1st respondent holds unchallenged letters of administration to the estate, and the applicants were not parties to the original suit or the consent judgment. The court held that the applicants do not have locus standi to seek review of the consent judgment, as they are not aggrieved parties within the meaning of the law. Any claim they may have should be pursued in an independent suit, not by seeking review of a…
Source excerpt
