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
Beinagera Justine v Niwagaba Norman (Civil Miscellaneous Application 62 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 434 (12 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to set aside an ex parte order and file a defence out of time, finding it defective and noting the underlying grant had lapsed by law.
Roko Construction Ltd v Mehta Electricals Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 43 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 126 (11 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to set aside a hearing said to have proceeded ex parte, finding the applicant was represented by counsel holding brief and had defaulted on directions.
Namulondo v Bamwesigye & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 149 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1133 (21 November 2024)
The court found that the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing her defence, primarily due to the mistakes and dilatory conduct of her former counsel. The applicant showed continued interest in prosecuting her case and was present in court when her defence was struck off. The principle that litigants should not be penalized for counsel's errors was applied, and the court exercised its discretion to review and set aside the ex parte order, grant an extension of time, and allow the applicant to re-file her defence. The court emphasized the need for substantive justice,…
Source excerpt
Rohi Investment Limited v Fenghua Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2270 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 162 (17 April 2024)
The High Court held it was functus officio and dismissed an application to set aside its earlier dismissal of a summary application for want of sufficient cause.
Fuelex (U) Limited v National Water and Sewerage Corporation (Civil Appeal 22 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 293 (10 October 2023)
The High Court upheld the dismissal of an application to reinstate a long-running suit, finding repeated non-appearance and delay showed abuse of process.
Fuelex Uganda Limited v National Water and Sewerage Corporation (Civil Appeal 22 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 292 (10 October 2023)
The High Court found that the appellant, Fuelex (U) Limited, and its counsel repeatedly failed to attend court and prosecute their applications, resulting in multiple dismissals for nonappearance. The court held that the cumulative conduct of Fuelex and its lawyers—failing to appear on scheduled dates, not prioritizing the case, and providing inadequate explanations for absences—demonstrated a lack of honest intention to prosecute the suit. The court emphasized that while procedural rules should not be applied oppressively, they are essential for the fair and efficient administration of justi…
Source excerpt
Warid Telecom Uganda and Another v Isomgoma (Miscellaneous Application No. 34 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 39 (17 February 2023)
The High Court set aside an ex parte taxation decision after finding the applicants were denied a fair hearing because notice was too short to attend.
China Railways No. 3 Engineering Company Limited v Muwema and Company Advocates and Solicitors (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 40 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 246 (30 November 2022)
The High Court set aside ex-parte orders made by the Deputy Registrar and directed that the related cause and application be heard inter partes before another registrar.
Mabirizi Male v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 89 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 69 (1 April 2022)
The High Court struck out an application to set aside inter partes orders, holding it lacked jurisdiction and that concurrent appeal and setting-aside proceedings were an abuse of process.
Muwanga v Ssendagire Muteekanya (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 859 of 2021) [2021] UGHCLD 132 (14 September 2021)
The court found that the applicant's counsel had a sufficient cause for failing to attend court on the scheduled date, as he was attending to a critically ill defendant who required urgent legal assistance to make a will. The court held that sufficient cause is not rigidly defined and that the circumstances presented by the applicant met the threshold for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings. The court distinguished the respondent's cited authority, noting that the applicant here provided a detailed explanation for his absence, unlike in the cited case. The court concluded that the ex-parte…
Source excerpt
