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
Kare Distribution Limited v African River Fund (Civil Application 804 of 2022) [2023] UGCA 187 (20 July 2023)
The Court of Appeal of Uganda allowed the parties to withdraw the appeal after settlement and dismissed the appeal by consent, closing the file.
Senyonjo v Delta Petroleum (U) Limited (Civil Application No. 325 of 2017) [2023] UGCA 85 (9 March 2023)
The Court of Appeal granted extension of time and leave to appeal out of time, accepting that the delay resulted from counsel’s mistake and not the applicant’s conduct.
Turyagumanawe and Others v Attorney General and Another (Civil Appeal No. 152 of 2017) [2022] UGCA 363 (8 November 2022)
The Court of Appeal of Uganda formally withdrew Civil Appeal No. 152 of 2017 and made no order as to costs.
Kiviri Tumwehe v Mubiru (Election Petition Application No. 30 of 2022) [2022] UGCA 117 (21 March 2022)
The Court of Appeal of Uganda struck out a notice of appeal as withdrawn after finding no essential step had been taken to institute the appeal.
Lubega Saulo v Kabali and 4 Others (HCT-15-LD-CA 16 of 2017) [2021] UGHC 33 (19 April 2021)
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding there was no proved fraud and no need for a locus quo visit. Costs were awarded against the appellant.
Nyende David v KPI Security Services Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2015) [2021] UGCA 225 (21 January 2021)
The Court of Appeal recorded a consent withdrawal of the appeal, settled related disputes, and provided for payment terms, default interest, and recovery costs.
National Council of Sports v JJagwe Robert (COA-O 0-cv-cA-0168-2016) [2020] UGCA 2182 (30 November 2020)
The Court of Appeal of Uganda struck out an appeal after both parties consented to withdraw it, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
Orient Bank Limited v Sentogo (Miscellaneous Application No. 1112 of 2019) [2020] UGCommC 149 (28 September 2020)
The High Court found that Civil Application No. 016 of 2019 at the Court of Appeal, which sought to strike out Civil Appeal No. 320 of 2018, is now moot because both Civil Appeal No. 320/2018 and Civil Application No. 129/2020 have been withdrawn and dismissed. However, the Court held that since Constitutional Petition No. 18 of 2020 challenges the constitutionality of Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulation—the very regulation at issue in MA 1112 of 2019—the proceedings in MA 1112 of 2019 must be stayed pending the outcome of the constitutional petition, in accordance with binding preced…
Source excerpt
Lukozi v Simba Telecom Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 235 of 2019) [2020] UGCA 2063 (13 July 2020)
The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient reason for extension of time to re-file and serve the withdrawn Notice of Appeal. The withdrawal of the Notice of Appeal and subsequent pursuit of Miscellaneous Application No. 60 of 2018 were done with the applicant's knowledge, instructions, and participation. The alleged mistakes of counsel are not excusable, as the applicant was fully involved in the decisions and actions taken. The court finds that allowing the application would constitute an abuse of court process, as the applicant seeks to revert to an appeal process after the matter was c…
Source excerpt
Were v Mutibwa Mugaiula and Another (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2013) [2020] UGCA 2175 (6 July 2020)
The Court held that Rule 94(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which allows for withdrawal of an appeal by consent of all parties, applies only when the appeal is pending hearing. Once an appeal has been called for hearing and is only pending judgment, it cannot be withdrawn under Rule 94(3) without leave of Court. The Supreme Court decision in Geoffrey Gatete And Angella Maria Nakigonya Vs William Kyobe was followed, confirming that withdrawal at this stage requires leave. Given the unique circumstances, including the COVID-19 lockdown, the Court exercised its discretion under Rule 2(2) to gra…
Source excerpt
