Uganda Case Law

National Social Security Fund v MTN Uganda Ltd & Anor

National Social Security Fund v MTN Uganda Ltd & Anor (Civil Suit No. 94 of 2009) [2011] UGCommC 80 (12 July 2011)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit No. 94 of 2009

The court held that Unisis Investments Uganda Ltd was the employer of the contract staff for purposes of NSSF contributions, as explicitly defined in the contract between MTN Uganda and Unisis. The contract and its appendices clearly established Unisis as the employer, with obligations to pay all statutory deductions, including NSSF. MTN Uganda fulfilled its contractual obligations by remitting the required funds to Unisis, and the failure by Unisis to pay NSSF did not transfer liability to MTN Uganda. The court found no ambiguity in the contract requiring application of common law tests for…

Source excerpt

• Nssf Contributions
• Contract Of Service
• Employer Liability
• Agency Workers
• Statutory Penalties

Uganda v Obita

Uganda v Obita (Criminal Revision 2 of 1995) [1995] UGHC 48 (18 December 1995)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Revision 2 of 1995

Judges

GM OKELLO, J

The High Court set aside a magistrate’s unlawful traffic sentence because the fine exceeded the statutory maximum and discretion belonged to the court, not the accused.

• Sentencing Discretion
• Statutory Penalties
• Traffic Offences
• Sentencing-discretion
• Statutory-penalties
• Traffic-offences

Rex v Merali (Confirmation Case No. 605 of 1947)

Rex v Merali (Confirmation Case No. 605 of 1947) [1947] EACA 60 (1 January 1947)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Confirmation Case No. 605 of 1947

Judges

Coffey AgJ, Nihill, C.J

The court held that section 52(1) of the Game Ordinance, 1937, being later in time and specific to the offence of unlawful possession of rhinoceros horn, overrides the general sentencing discretion provided by section 27(3) of the Penal Code. Therefore, the Magistrate's sentence of a fine only was incomplete and contrary to the mandatory requirements of the Game Ordinance, which stipulates that a term of imprisonment must be imposed for such offences. The conviction and fine were affirmed, but the court added a sentence of one day's imprisonment to comply with the statutory mandate.

Source excerpt

• Game Ordinance Offences
• Statutory Penalties
• Sentencing Guidelines
• Unlawful Possession
• Rhinoceros Horn
• Statute Precedence