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
Asaba v Kibirige (Civil Revision 8 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 161 (20 February 2025)
The High Court revised and set aside an LCIII decision, holding that the sub-county court had acted without jurisdiction by entertaining the matter as a first-instance case.
Kyampa v Kiguli (Revision Cause 4 of 2021) [2024] UGHC 625 (5 July 2024)
The court found that the applicant served the Notice of Motion on the respondent more than one year after it was endorsed by the court, far outside the twenty-one day period prescribed by Order 5 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant failed to provide credible evidence that the delay was due to the court file being missing, nor did he make any formal communication to the court regarding the alleged disappearance of the file. The court held that the delay was unjustified and that the application was incompetent for being served out of time. The preliminary objection raised by t…
Source excerpt
Kabugho v Asaba (Miscellaneous Application No. 85 of 2018) [2023] UGHCCD 3 (17 January 2023)
The High Court dismissed an application to revise a small claims default judgment, finding no proved illegality, material irregularity, or denial of fair hearing.
Asiimwe v Tumwongyeirwe (Miscellaneous Application No. 103 of 2011) [2012] UGCA 64 (14 June 2012)
The Court of Appeal held that the application for leave to appeal was not validly before it because the applicant failed to first seek leave from the trial court as required by Order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court emphasized that while procedural rules may sometimes be interpreted liberally, the legislative intent and the consequences of non-compliance must be considered. In this case, the applicant's failure to apply for leave in the High Court, coupled with dilatory conduct and avoidance of the proper forum, rendered the application incompetent. The court reaffirmed that the tri…
Source excerpt
