Uganda Case Law

Wakamala Alex & Mwandha Jamilu v Uganda

Wakamala Alex & Mwandha Jamilu v Uganda (Criminal Revision 13 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCRD 26 (15 July 2025)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

Criminal Revision 13 of 2025

Judge

Matovu, J

The High Court found that the magistrate's order of 5th April 2024, which banned audio and video recording of proceedings but allowed verified media to attend and report in print, was made in good faith for the effective management of the trial and to prevent breaches of the sub judice rule. The court held that the applicants' delay of nearly ten months in challenging the order was inexcusable, as significant evidence had already been adduced under the order's operation. Allowing the application would create inconsistency and prejudice witnesses who testified under the restriction. The court…

Source excerpt

• Media Access To Court
• Sub Judice Rule
• Fair Trial Rights
• Court Management

Centre for Public Interest Law v Attorney General

Centre for Public Interest Law v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 40 of 2015) [2025] UGCC 5 (27 June 2025)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Constitutional Petition No. 40 of 2015

Judge

Egonda-Ntende, JCC, Obura, JCC, Eva K. Luswata, JA/JCC, Kazibwe, JCC, Asa Mugenyi, JA/ JCC

The court held that Rule 20 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations is not inconsistent with the Constitution, as it serves the legitimate objective of protecting the right to a fair hearing, which is non-derogable. The sub judice rule is an acceptable and demonstrably justifiable limitation under Article 43(1), balancing the right to freedom of expression and access to information against the need for fair and impartial judicial proceedings. However, Rule 73 of the Procedure of the Parliament of Uganda is unconstitutional to the extent that it prohibits Parliament from discussing…

Source excerpt

• Sub Judice Rule
• Freedom Of Expression
• Access To Information
• Parliamentary Procedure
• Fair Trial Rights

Asiimwe v Ndyomugyenyi & Another

Asiimwe v Ndyomugyenyi & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 135 of 2023) [2023] UGHCCD 395 (27 October 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause 135 of 2023

Judge

Baguma, J

The High Court dismissed a judicial review application, holding that the impugned report contained recommendations only and no reviewable decision.

• Judicial Review
• Certiorari
• Prohibition
• Natural Justice
• Sub Judice Rule
• Judicial-review

Allibhai & 2 Others v Attorney General

Allibhai & 2 Others v Attorney General (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSES NO. 70, 117 & 119 OF 2020) [2020] UGHCCD 216 (7 October 2020)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

MISCELLANEOUS CAUSES NO. 70, 117 & 119 OF 2020

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The High Court held that COSASE’s inquiry was amenable to judicial review, but the applicants’ challenge was premature and speculative, so the consolidated applications were dismissed with costs.

• Judicial Review
• Parliamentary Committee Powers
• Separation Of Powers
• Fair Hearing
• Ultra Vires Actions
• Sub Judice Rule

Nantabala Vs Attorney General (Misc. Cause No. 030 of 2016)

Nantabala Vs Attorney General (Misc. Cause No. 030 of 2016) [2019] UGHC 17 (22 August 2019)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Misc. Cause No. 030 of 2016

Judge

Luswata, J

The High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to the IGG’s investigation into alleged fraud in land title issuance, holding the probe was lawful despite a pending civil suit.

• Judicial Review
• Powers Of Igg
• Sub Judice Rule
• Certiorari And Prohibition
• Fair Hearing
• Fraud In Land Title

Liberty Construction Company Limited & Another v African Development Bank & Another

Liberty Construction Company Limited & Another v African Development Bank & Another (Miscellaneous Application 877 of 2015) [2016] UGCommC 287 (13 June 2016)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 877 of 2015

Judge

Alividza, J

The High Court found that while diplomatic immunity for international organizations such as the African Development Bank is recognized under Ugandan law and international conventions, it is not absolute, particularly in commercial matters. However, in this case, the connection between the sanctions proceedings and the pending civil suit was too remote. The Respondents were not parties to the main suit, and the subject of the sanctions (forged guarantees) was not the central issue in the pending litigation, which concerned post-termination obligations. The court held that the Respondents' admi…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review
• Diplomatic Immunity
• Sanctions Proceedings
• Sub Judice Rule