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
Jamada Luzinda v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 90 of 2012) [2021] UGCA 117 (18 October 2021)
The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of Jamada K Luzinda’s judicial review claim against the Attorney General as time barred and incompetent.
M&D Timber Merchant and Transporters Ltd v Hwan Sung Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 0796 of 2015) [2015] UGHCLD 42 (15 December 2015)
The High Court held that the respondent’s land recovery suit was filed outside the 12-year limitation period and dismissed it with costs.
Eng.Yashwant and Another v Ngude Odaka and 5 Others (HCT-OO-CC-CS 365 of 2007) [2008] UGCommC 86 (11 March 2008)
The court found that while the defendants raised numerous procedural objections, the plaintiffs' suit was properly brought as a derivative action to address alleged fraud and mismanagement within the company. The procedural requirements cited by the defendants did not warrant dismissal, as the court has wide discretion under Section 33 of the Judicature Act and Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities. The objections did not dispose of the whole claim, and no prejudice or miscarriage of justice was occasioned by proceeding…
Source excerpt
Wanyama v City Council of Kampala and Another (Civil Appeal No. 06 of 2004) [2008] UGCA 25 (1 March 2008)
The Court of Appeal held that the appellant's suit was statute-barred under Section 3(1) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Cap 72), which prescribes a two-year limitation period for such claims. The cause of action arose on 18-10-2000, but the suit was filed on 22-01-2003, outside the prescribed period. The correspondence and internal memos cited by the appellant did not amount to a valid acknowledgement of debt, as they were either internal advice or shifting of responsibility between the respondents, and were not communicated to the appellant in a manner…
Source excerpt
