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
Nassar v I .S and M Holdings Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application 415 of 2023; Miscellaneous Application 904 of 2023) [2024] UGHCLD 13 (12 January 2024)
The High Court held that a rejoinder filed without leave was improper and struck it out, and it cancelled witness summons issued by the Registrar in error.
Central Bank of Kenya v Pontrilas Investments Limited and Another (Appeal No.3 of 2020) [2021] EACJ 36 (18 November 2021) (Appellate Division)
The appellate division found that the trial court did not commit any procedural irregularity in its handling of document production, witness summons, or amendments to pleadings. The court held that the issue of whether the Central Bank of Kenya is an institution of the East African Community is a mixed question of law and fact, properly deferred to the substantive hearing of the reference. The trial court's exercise of discretion under Rule 66 to order production of specific documents and to summon the Head of Supervision was within its powers and not irregular, especially as the documents we…
Source excerpt
Pontrilas Investments Ltd v Central Bank of Kenya and Another (Application 14 of 2019) [2020] EACJ 26 (15 June 2020) (First Instance Division)
The East African Court of Justice partly granted an application to amend pleadings and for production of selected bank-supervision documents, but refused to summon the Central Bank Governor.
Dr. Stella Nyanzi V Uganda (Criminal Revision No. 024 of 2019) [2019] UGHCCRD 39 (31 July 2019)
The High Court dismissed Dr. Stella Nyanzi’s criminal revision application, holding that the trial magistrate had not acted illegally or biasedly in managing defence witnesses.
Zziwa v Secretary General of The East African Community (Application 1 of 2016) [2016] EACJ 122 (24 June 2016) (First Instance Division)
The Court held that witness summons under Rule 56 are only appropriate for compelling unwilling witnesses, not those who have voluntarily agreed to testify. The Applicant and her proposed witnesses do not require summons as they are willing to give evidence. More fundamentally, the Court cannot use its powers to circumvent or overturn the Assembly's decision denying leave for production of privileged documents under Section 20(1) of the EALA (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2003. The separation of powers principle entrenched in the Treaty prevents the Court from interfering with the Assembly's in…
Source excerpt
