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
Uganda v Oscar and Others (HCT-01-CR-CN-0014-2024) [2025] UGHC 521 (4 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed the State’s criminal appeal for want of prosecution after the appellant failed to file a memorandum of appeal within the required time.
Okumu v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 284 of 2017) [2025] UGHCCD 20 (14 February 2025)
The High Court held that Okumu Martin’s challenge to the Law Council’s refusal of a certificate of eligibility was time barred and, in any event, failed on the merits.
Magombe v Sironko District Local Government (Application 22 of 2024) [2024] UGPPDPAAT 19 (9 May 2024)
The Tribunal found that the Applicant had established a reasonable basis to believe the Respondent's Accounting Officer could not handle the complaint impartially, thus satisfying locus standi requirements under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. However, the Tribunal determined that the application was filed outside the statutory ten-day period prescribed by section 91I(2)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that statutory time limits are matters of substantive law, not mere technicalities, and strict compliance is required. As the application was filed out of time,…
Source excerpt
DSN International Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application 161 of 2023) [2023] UGTAT 17 (20 December 2023)
The tribunal held that the applicant failed to serve the application on the respondent within the mandatory five-day period prescribed by Section 16(3) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act and Rule 13 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Procedure Rules. The delay of over five months constituted indolence and a lack of diligence. Statutory time limits for service are matters of substantive law and must be strictly complied with, as established in Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd. The applicant did not provide sufficient cause for the delay, nor did it act promptly in seeking re…
Source excerpt
Kiyindi Electronical & Engineering Limited v Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Assets Authority (Civil Appeal 86 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 401 (18 September 2023)
The court held that section 91L(1)(c) of the PPDA Act prescribes a mandatory ten working day period for lodging applications for review before the Tribunal, and there is no statutory provision granting the Tribunal discretion to enlarge or extend this period. The Civil Procedure Act and Rules do not apply to extend time in this context. The Tribunal's finding that the decision was communicated to the appellant on 28th September 2020 was supported by evidence, and the time for appeal expired on 13th October 2020. The appellant was therefore out of time, and the Tribunal acted within its jurisd…
Source excerpt
Namutebi v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 79 of 2022) [2023] UGTAT 45 (24 July 2023)
The Tribunal dismissed a customs challenge, holding that the goods had been entered for home consumption and could be disposed of under section 60 of EACCMA.
MBJ Technologies Limited v Mbarara City and 2 Others (Application No. 17 of 2022) [2022] UGPPDPAAT 16 (8 July 2022)
The Tribunal found that the applicant's administrative review application was filed outside the statutory time limits prescribed by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, 2003 as amended. The Accounting Officer's decision was communicated out of time, rendering it null and void. The applicant, as a bidder, was required to file the application within ten calendar days from the expiry of the period for the Accounting Officer's decision, but failed to do so. The Tribunal emphasized that statutory time limits are mandatory and strictly binding, and it has no jurisdiction to ent…
Source excerpt
Samanga Solutions Limited v Uganda Wild Life (Application No. 14 of 2022) [2022] UGPPDPAAT 13 (13 June 2022)
The Tribunal found that the application was filed outside the statutory time limits prescribed by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. The Accounting Officer's decision was communicated out of time, rendering it null and void. However, the Applicant failed to file the application to the Tribunal within ten calendar days from the expiry of the period for the Accounting Officer's decision, as required by law. The Tribunal emphasized that statutory time limits in procurement matters are mandatory and noncompliance is fatal. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain appli…
Source excerpt
Earth Savers Movement Uganda Chapter v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Application No. 15 of 2022) [2022] UGPPDPAAT 14 (7 June 2022)
The Tribunal struck out the procurement review application as time-barred and incompetent, holding that the applicant lacked locus standi because its bid had expired.
Ossiya v Koluo and Another (Election Petition No. 2 of 2021) [2021] UGHCEP 40 (6 September 2021)
The petition was filed with an affidavit commissioned by an advocate who did not possess a valid practicing certificate at the time, as the grace period for renewal had expired on 1st March 2021 and the commissioning occurred on 10th March 2021. This contravened Rule 4(8) of the Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) Rules and Section 2 of the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act, rendering the affidavit and consequently the petition incurably defective. The defect is a failure to comply with a mandatory statutory requirement, which is fatal and cannot be cured by Article 126(2)(e) of…
Source excerpt
