Uganda Case Law

New Vision Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd v Atek Lillian and Ojok Cosmos Otukene

New Vision Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd v Atek Lillian and Ojok Cosmos Otukene (Miscellaneous Application No. 013/2024) [2025] UGHC 312 (21 May 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 013/2024

Judge

Mwaka, J

The Applicant, New Vision Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd, was not a party to the original suit in the lower court and did not participate in the trial proceedings. Its emergence as an applicant seeking extension of time and validation of appeal documents was unsupported by any formal joinder, substitution, or addition as a party to the suit. The court found that only parties to the original litigation have locus standi to appeal or seek related orders. The Applicant failed to establish any legal basis for its standing, and its application was filed in a vacuum, rendering it incompetent and mis…

Source excerpt

• Locus Standi
• Extension Of Time
• Leave To Appeal
• Validation Of Appeal Documents
• Striking Out Application

Kiyaga v Byarubaska and 2 Others

Kiyaga v Byarubaska and 2 Others (Civil Review 3077 of 2023) [2024] UGHCLD 139 (23 May 2024)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Review 3077 of 2023

Judge

Nassuna Matovu, J

The High Court Land Division struck out a review application as res judicata and an abuse of process because it duplicated an earlier application between the same parties.

• Res Judicata
• Abuse Of Process
• Striking Out Application
• Res-judicata
• Abuse-of-process
• Strike-out

Attorney General v Okello and Another

Attorney General v Okello and Another (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 46 (2 July 2021)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 2020

Judge

Adonyo, J

The affidavit in support of the application was incurably defective as it failed to comply with Section 5 of the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act by omitting the name and grade of the commissioner for oaths in the jurat. Unlike in Kizza Besigye v. Y.K. Museveni, no supplementary affidavit was filed to cure the defect. The defect is substantive and not merely technical, and Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution cannot be invoked to cure such illegality. Without a valid supporting affidavit, the application cannot stand and must be struck out. The court found that illegality overrides all…

Source excerpt

• Affidavit Defects
• Commissioner For Oaths Requirements
• Preliminary Objection
• Burden Of Proof
• Striking Out Application

Syndicat des Anciens Travailleurs du Groupe de Laboratoire et Autres v Mali (Application 2 of 2015)

Syndicat des Anciens Travailleurs du Groupe de Laboratoire et Autres v Mali (Application 2 of 2015) [2015] AfCHPR 30 (1 January 2015)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Application 2 of 2015

The African Court struck out the application for failure to reformulate it to comply with procedural rules, despite prior legal assistance and extensions.

• Exhaustion Of Domestic Remedies
• Procedural Non Compliance
• Striking Out Application
• Procedural-non-compliance
• Strike-out
• Exhaustion-of-domestic-remedies

Katarikawe & Ors v Turyamureeba

Katarikawe & Ors v Turyamureeba (Miscellaneous Application No. 0169 of 2013) [2014] UGHCCD 108 (28 August 2014)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 0169 of 2013

The application for account was struck out because it did not arise from a pending suit based on a plaint, as required by Order 20 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court found that an application for account presupposes the existence of a plaint in which the plaintiff seeks an account, and in the absence of such a suit, the application is incompetent. Additionally, the application was found to be barred by limitation under Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, as the cause of action arose in 2004 and the application was filed in 2013, outside the six-year limitation period. The court up…

Source excerpt

• Preliminary Objection
• Limitation Periods
• Application For Account
• Jurisdiction
• Striking Out Application

Willing Tumukunde v Abusagi Karagi (HCT-05-CV-MA-0115-2000 ) (HCT-05-CV-MA-0115-2000)

Willing Tumukunde v Abusagi Karagi (HCT-05-CV-MA-0115-2000 ) (HCT-05-CV-MA-0115-2000) [2004] UGHC 67 (19 October 2004)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-05-CV-MA-0115-2000

The High Court held that the application was incompetent for non-compliance with Order 6 rule 1 CPR and struck it out with costs to the respondent.

• Striking Out Application
• Order 6 Rule 1 Requirements
• Affidavit Evidence
• Service Of Process
• Civil-procedure
• Striking-out