Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 1 court collection
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 04:18 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

11 Aug 2023

Civil Procedure [2023] UGSC 22

Ssemakula v Asiimwe

Ssemakula v Asiimwe (Civil Reference 4 of 2023) [2023] UGSC 22 (11 August 2023)

Court: Supreme Court of Uganda
Case number: Civil Reference 4 of 2023
Judge: Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, JSC, Tuhaise, JSC, Madrama , JSC

The Supreme Court held that a single Justice does not have jurisdiction to strike out an appeal, as such power is reserved for a fully constituted bench under section 8 of the Judicature Act and Rule 50(2)(c) of the Supreme Court Rules. The Court further determined that, for computation of time to lodge an appeal, the period of Christmas vacation should be excluded, and the most proximate definition is that provided under Order 51 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules (24th December to 15th January). Applying this exclusion, the appellant's appeal was filed within the prescribed 60-day period.…

Source excerpt

Computation Of Time
Court Vacation Periods
Jurisdiction Of Single Justice
Appeal Striking Out
Extension Of Time
Supreme Court Rules

Read case analysis

Date unavailable

Civil Procedure [2007] UGSC 2

National Housing & Construction Corporation v Kampala District Land Board & Anor

National Housing & Construction Corporation v Kampala District Land Board & Anor [2007] UGSC 2 (2 August 2007)

Court: Supreme Court of Uganda
Judge: Tsekooko, JSC

The Supreme Court held that the application for an interim stay of execution was premature and without basis because no decree embodying the Court's decision had been approved, no costs had been taxed, and there was no evidence of any application for execution by the respondent. The Court found that the applicant's fears were speculative and not grounded in any imminent threat of execution. The authorities cited by the applicant were distinguished on the basis that they involved situations where appeals were pending or execution was imminent, which was not the case here. The Court emphasized…