Uganda Case Law

Sentambule v Jane Musoke

Sentambule v Jane Musoke (Miscellaneous Appeal 46 of 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 180 (2 July 2024)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Appeal 46 of 2024

Judge

Bernard Namanya, J

The court held that the appellant, Paul Sentambule, having been found guilty of contempt of court in Misc. Application No.1052 of 2018 and not having purged himself of that contempt, is not entitled to be heard by the court. The court relied on binding authority from the Court of Appeal in Jingo Mukasa v. Rwaguma, which established that a contemnor who continues to violate court orders forfeits the right of audience until the contempt is purged. The court further found that the appellant was still engaging in activities on the disputed land in direct contravention of the court's orders, demon…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Execution Proceedings
• Right Of Audience
• Stay Of Execution

M.K Creditors Ltd v Kazooba

M.K Creditors Ltd v Kazooba (Miscellaneous Application No. 1341 of 2017) [2019] UGCommC 18 (11 July 2019)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 1341 of 2017

The court held that a company, as a separate legal entity, cannot be represented in court by its managing director unless that person is a qualified advocate or a recognized agent with a duly registered power of attorney. Mr. Mabirizi, not being an advocate and lacking a power of attorney, had no locus standi to appear for the applicant company. The court found that the applicant was given ample opportunity to engage an advocate but failed to do so, resulting in unnecessary delay and abuse of court process. The authorities cited by the applicant were found to be inapplicable or misapplied. Up…

Source excerpt

• Company Representation
• Locus Standi
• Right Of Audience
• Summary Judgment
• Striking Out Defense

Tweheyo v Barurengyera (HCT)

Tweheyo v Barurengyera (HCT) [2013] UGHCCD 103 (5 August 2013)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

HCT

The appeal was dismissed because the trial court properly exercised its discretion in ordering substituted service after reasonable efforts to serve the appellant personally failed. The appellant's arguments that substituted service was ineffective and that the affidavit of service was false were unsupported by evidence. The court found that the appellant did not raise a meritorious defence in the grounds of appeal, and that the reframing of grounds in submissions was contrary to procedural rules. The trial court's decision was not based on a wrong principle of law or misdirection of facts, a…

Source excerpt

• Exparte Judgment
• Substituted Service
• Setting Aside Judgment
• Affidavit Of Service
• Sale Of Land
• Right Of Audience

Patel v Gottfried

Patel v Gottfried (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1952) [1955] EACA 16 (1 January 1955)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1952

Judges

Mahon, ACJ (Tanganyika), Nihill P, Worley VP

The Court of Appeal adjourned a Kenyan appeal after noting that counsel was suspended from practising in Kenya, despite having audience rights in other constituent territories.

• Right Of Audience
• Advocate Suspension
• Court Jurisdiction
• Right-of-audience
• Advocate-suspension
• Court-of-appeal-procedure

Lal v British East African Planting Co. Ltd (Civ. App. No. 1 of 1938)

Lal v British East African Planting Co. Ltd (Civ. App. No. 1 of 1938) [1938] EACA 206 (1 January 1938)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civ. App. No. 1 of 1938

Judge

Sheridan CJ

The court dismissed an appeal challenging a garnishee ruling, holding that an assignee of a decree could not appear without formal leave and application.

• Garnishee Proceedings
• Assignment Of Decree
• Right Of Audience
• Continuance Of Proceedings
• Definition Of Suit
• Execution Of Decree