Uganda Case Law

Bin-IT Services Ltd v Kampala Capital City Authority & Another

Bin-IT Services Ltd v Kampala Capital City Authority & Another (Civil Suit 198 of 2016) [2022] UGCommC 173 (2 October 2022)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 198 of 2016

Judge

Cornelia Kakooza Sabiiti, J

The court found that the previous judgment in Civil Suit No. 297 of 2016 did not constitute a judgment in rem as it did not determine the status of property, and the plaintiff in the present suit was not a party to those proceedings. The principle of stare decisis does not automatically bar the current suit, as the facts and parties differ and the court has not yet heard evidence to determine if the cases are identical. The objections raised are premature, and the matter should proceed to a full hearing to establish the relevant facts and legal standing of the plaintiff under applicable regul…

Source excerpt

• Concessionaire Agreements
• Monopoly Creation
• Judgment In Rem
• Stare Decisis
• Res Judicata
• Waste Management Contracts

Oliver Namyeka & 2 Others V Parliamentary Commission

Oliver Namyeka & 2 Others V Parliamentary Commission (Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2013) [2019] UGCA 2014 (30 July 2019)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2013

Judge

Kakuru, JA, Kiryabwire, JA, Barishaki, JA

The Court of Appeal found that the trial Judge erred in striking out the Parliamentary Commission as a party to the suit. The original trial Judge had correctly found a cause of action against the Commission, and all necessary parties were already before the court. The Twinobusingye case was misapplied; it established a functional test, not a blanket rule excluding the Commission from being sued. The actions complained of—arrest by the Sergeant at Arms—fell within the Commission's statutory functions. The principle of functus officio prevented the second Judge from revisiting the earlier ruli…

Source excerpt

• Joinder And Striking Out Of Parties
• Functus Officio
• Representation Of Government Entities
• Cause Of Action
• Stare Decisis

Namyeka & 2 Ors Vs Parliarmentary Commission

Namyeka & 2 Ors Vs Parliarmentary Commission (Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2013) [2019] UGCA 336 (30 July 2019)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2013

The Court of Appeal found that the trial Judge erred in striking out the Parliamentary Commission as a party to the suit. The original ruling by Justice Kibuuka Musoke had already determined that the plaint disclosed a cause of action against the Commission, and all necessary parties were present. The subsequent reliance on the Twinobusingye case was a misdirection, as that case established a functional test for party representation, not a blanket rule. The Attorney General was already a party, and the Commission's involvement related to the actions of its employee, the Sergeant at Arms. The…

Source excerpt

• Joinder And Striking Out Of Parties
• Functus Officio
• Representation Of Government Entities
• Cause Of Action
• Stare Decisis

Shah v Attorney General of Kenya

Shah v Attorney General of Kenya (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1955) [1955] EACA 289 (1 January 1955)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1955

Judge

Hooper, J, Nihill P, O'Connor CJ, Sir Enoch Jenkins, JA, Worley VP

The Court of Appeal held that the Supreme Court of Kenya could hear a habeas corpus application on its civil side and remitted the matter for determination on the merits.

• Habeas Corpus
• Jurisdiction Of Supreme Court
• Stare Decisis
• Liberty Of The Subject
• Habeas-corpus
• Stare-decisis