Uganda Case Law

Muwinda and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 030/2017)

Muwinda and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 030/2017) [2022] AfCHPR 8 (24 March 2022)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Application No. 030/2017

Judge

Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Kioko J, Mengue J, Mukamulisa J, Ntsebeza J, Sacko J, Tchikaya VP

The Court found that the Applicants failed to substantiate their claims for subsistence allowance beyond what was already adjudicated by the domestic courts. The Court of Appeal of Tanzania determined the periods and amounts due, and the Applicants did not provide evidence to challenge those findings or to demonstrate a duty of repatriation or entitlement to further allowances. Regarding discrimination, the Applicants did not specify the grounds or provide sufficient information about the allegedly favoured employees or the basis for differential treatment. The burden of proof for discriminat…

Source excerpt

• Right To Work
• Remuneration Entitlement
• Non Discrimination
• Subsistence Allowance
• Exhaustion Of Local Remedies

Muwinda and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 030/2017)

Muwinda and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 030/2017) [2021] AfCHPR 56 (5 March 2021)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Application No. 030/2017

Judge

Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Eno R, Kioko VP, Matusse J, Mengue J, Mukamulisa J, Orè P, Tchikaya J

The African Court granted Tanzania’s request for extension of time and reopened pleadings in a case concerning retrenchment-related subsistence allowances.

• Retrenchment Benefits
• Subsistence Allowance
• Extension Of Time
• Reopening Pleadings
• Extension-of-time
• Reopening-pleadings

Sebirumbi v Konde

Sebirumbi v Konde (Civil Appeal 38 of 1994) [1994] UGHC 49 (6 June 1994)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 38 of 1994

Judges

GM OKELLO, J

The court held that the arrest and detention of the appellant as a civil debtor was improper because the mandatory requirement to serve a notice to show cause under Order 19 rule 34(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules was not complied with. The court found that the record did not show that such notice was served before the warrant of arrest was issued. Furthermore, the court observed that the appellant was not notified of the date of delivery of the ruling on taxation, and thus could not have known the amount due. Although the respondent argued that the ruling was delivered and the certificate of…

Source excerpt

• Execution Of Decrees
• Arrest And Detention Of Judgment Debtor
• Notice To Show Cause
• Taxation Of Costs
• Subsistence Allowance
• Burden Of Proof