Lawpoint Uganda

The Court established that the last action in the suit had been taken on 19 August 2025, when the parties opted to prioritise the earlier suit. When the matter was called for hearing on 2 October 2026, neither party had taken any further step to progress the proceedings. The period of inactivity exceeded one year. The Court considered this inactivity against the procedural framework governing the prosecution of civil suits and the need to address delays in the administration

The Court reviewed Articles 238, 239 and 241 of the Constitution, sections 47, 50, and 61 of the Land Act, and Regulation 23 of the Land Regulations, 2004. It noted that Article 241(1)(a) empowers a district land board "to hold and allocate land in the district which is not owned by any person or authority", while Article 239 provides that ULC "shall hold and manage any land in Uganda vested in or acquired by the Government of Uganda". It also noted that Article 241(2) makes

The Court held that the Company had satisfied the requirements of Section 141 of the Insolvency Act and Regulation 135 of the Insolvency Regulations, demonstrating genuine insolvency and presenting a credible rescue plan supported by an independent professional assessment. It reaffirmed that provisional administration provides a financially distressed company with breathing space to pursue restructuring and negotiate a settlement with creditors, potentially achieving a better

The Court applied the literal rule of contractual interpretation, emphasising that contractual terms should be given their ordinary meaning, with ambiguity resolved, where necessary, by reference to the factual background and commercial purpose of the agreement

The Court applied Fuelex, quoting the constitutional court's reasoning that Section 15 does not reach a case where the taxpayer "contends that he or she is exempted from a tax upon which the assessment is based." It agreed with the TAT's characterisation of the dispute

The Commission accepted that an estate dispute is a matter of legitimate public interest. It then drew a firm line. Following PJS v News Group Newspapers, it held the proper question is whether disclosure of the particular private information served the general welfare of the public. Regulation 38(1) demands a compelling and legitimate public interest before private affairs are reported. Red Pepper failed to show a link between the Complainants' marital, financial and family

The Court held that filing a defence does not waive the right to arbitrate. A party loses that right only by taking a step that affirms the court proceedings, such as furthering the suit on the merits or participating extensively. It cited British American Tobacco v Lira Tobacco Stores, Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd v Yuval Insurance Co Ltd [1978] 1 Lloyd's Rep 357, Patel v Patel [2000] QB 551 and Capital Trust Investments Ltd v Radio Design AB [2002] EWCA Civ 135. There was no

On passing off, the Court held that Migoo need not prove ownership or originality of the design, only goodwill in its trade dress, which it found established because customers asked for “Migoo” by name. It found misrepresentation because Rida deliberately moved its logo from a visible position to under the sole to make its boots visually identical, and it rejected Rida’s argument that Migoo’s failure to sue other manufacturers was fatal, holding that IP owners can pursue cost

The Court began by examining section 15 of the Electoral Commission Act and Article 61(1)(f) of the Constitution, which establish the Electoral Commission's role in resolving electoral complaints arising before and during elections. The Court considered the general principle that nomination disputes should ordinarily be raised through the statutory complaint mechanism before polling. However, it also considered whether the petitioner had a genuine opportunity to pursue that

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the applicant's use of the intermediary necessarily absolved the insurer of responsibility. It noted that the initial premium had been paid through the same intermediary and accepted by the insurer, even before the applicant received the policy document setting out the specified payment channels. The Tribunal reasoned that Clause 5 could not, in the circumstances, be treated as an exclusive payment mechanism that retrospectively i

The Court held that the authorities were either unreported or AI hallucinations. It noted that no regulations govern AI use in Ugandan courts, so a human must remain in the loop. Unverified, AI-hallucinated case law breaches an advocate's duty of candour and assaults the integrity of the judicial process.

The majority held that, where registered land is concerned, the RTA execution provisions prevail over the Companies Act, and that a corporate mortgagee signing through a director should show authority by seal, resolution, articles or power of attorney. Mugenyi, JSC took a contrary view, holding that a mortgagee need not execute at all and that a company may sign through a designated director. Lenders should nonetheless keep proof of signatory authority on file

The court held that the caveator, Mubangizi Filimon, had lost standing to pursue his objections because the caveat had lapsed. The court further observed the consequence under Section 256(4) of the Succession Act, that a person whose caveat has lapsed may not lodge a further caveat in respect of the same estate. However, the court observed that this did not leave the caveator without remedy altogether, since entitled persons remain free to apply for Letter of Administration i

At Unicaf, the leading provider of quality online higher education in Africa, we are committed to making quality higher education more accessible to students worldwide through our uniquely affordable, accessible, and flexible academic offerings, delivered in collaboration with esteemed university partners in the UK and Africa, helping students realise their academic and professional ambitions. With access to generous scholarship opportunities, internationally recognised degre

The Court noted that in Equity Bank Uganda Limited v HD Resources Limited, Justice A. B. Mugenyi had held that where a company registered in Uganda could not be traced through its physical address and none of its assets could be traced for purposes of satisfying a court decree, the company ought not to be permitted to take undue advantage of its creditors. The Court further noted the finding in that

Lawpoint Uganda has partnered with Unicaf to open new pathways to online higher education. You can now study toward internationally recognised degrees with partner universities in the UK and Africa, from wherever you are. Available law programmes include: LLB (Hons) Law Bachelor of Laws (LLB) LLM Master of Laws Unicaf also offers a wide range of programmes beyond law, across business, education, health, IT and more. You can study online for a Bachelor's, Master's or Doctoral

On the bar against using revision as a substitute for appeal, the Court relied on Section 50(5) and reaffirmed the reasoning in Semule Joel v Uganda, quoting that "the decision of a judicial officer however wrong it might seem does not become illegal or irregular simply because a party does not agree with it," and that where the irregularities cited "merely attack[] the decision of a trial Magistrate," the remedy "does not lie in Revision but rather in an appeal process." Th

Diplomatic immunity is an important principle of international law and its purpose is to protect diplomatic missions and international organisations from undue interference by the receiving State and to enable them to perform their legitimate international functions independently and effectively. Uganda is therefore required to respect immunities that it has undertaken to recognise under international law and through its domestic legislation. The issue, however, is not whethe

The Court found that the Applicant admittedly drew, signed and filed pleadings on 18 June 2020, six days before his practising certificate issued on 25 June 2020. Applying Section 75 of the Advocates Act and Alfred Olwora v Uganda Central Co-operative Union, Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1992, the Court held that the fees for that work were irrecoverable by operation of law, regardless of which party presented the bill. The Court held that the Law Council's disciplinar

Where a land sale agreement makes completion conditional on future payment and expressly provides for a refund on default, the courts will treat it as an executory, contingent contract under sections 27–31 of the Contracts Act, not one that immediately vests equitable ownership in the buyer.

The Court found that the Defendant's bare denial of authorship, unsupported by evidence of hacking, cloning or impersonation, was less probable than the Plaintiff's case, and concluded on a balance of probabilities that the publications were legally attributable to the Defendant.

In the present case, although the Plaintiff had participated in an MOU consenting to the substitution of the original executors, the Court held that such participation could not validate a process that contravened section 183 of the Succession Act, which provides that where probate has been granted to several executors and one dies, representation accrues to the surviving executor or executors. The Court emphatically held that “participation by an interested party in an illeg

The Court considered the legal effect of the Plaintiff's executed sale agreements and payment of the purchase price and held that upon execution of a valid land sale agreement and payment of the purchase price, the purchaser acquires an equitable interest in the property. The Court found that the Plaintiff had acquired an equitable interest in the two portions measuring 69ft by 43ft and 65ft by 55ft. The Court stated that; “It is now trite that upon the execution of a valid l

The Court relied on the principle that a spouse may acquire a beneficial interest even where formal title is registered in the other spouse’s name. It held that the Plaintiff’s claim was not based merely on her status as the first Defendant’s wife. Rather, it arose from her express identification as a purchaser, her contribution to development, and the parties’ subsequent use of the property.