Lawpoint Uganda

The Court held that Section 34 CPA is a directive to the court, not a bar to parties filing a suit. It aims to save judicial time and costs but does not invalidate proceedings filed by plaint. “It is my understanding that this provision does not dictate the nature of proceedings whether by application or plaint… It is instructive to court and not the parties.” the judge emphasized that the section permits courts to treat execution proceedings as a suit, and hence, this suit

The Court emphasized that assessors must exercise caution when recommending conviction based solely on the testimony of a single identifying witness. Citing Abdallah bin Wendo and Another v R (1953) 20 EACA 166, the Court stated that the evidence of a single witness regarding identification must be scrutinized with the greatest care. Furthermore, the Court held that the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime must be carefully evaluated to determine whether reli

Facts Adler Construction Company Ltd (the Applicant) applied under Section 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Cap. 4 and...

The Court acknowledged that while LADASA sets an eight-week limit for references, precedents such as Bosa v Post Bank (U) Ltd [2020] UGIC 33 and Adilo v Afro-Plast Enterprises Ltd [2023] UGIC 42 permit a Labour Officer to refer questions of damages to the Industrial Court in the interest of substantive justice. The Court held that the LO’s reference was valid, having been properly transmitted with the arbitral record. Hence, the matter was properly before the Court.

A moot prayer is one, that even if it is granted, it would have no practical effect on the rights or obligations of the parties before the Court. The law is clear that courts do not entertain applications seeking reliefs which are purely academic or devoid of any operative effect.

The Court found that the 3rd counter defendant, Coronet Consult Ltd, violated its contractual duty under the collaboration agreement by releasing the 1st counter defendant’s stock, valued at UGX 208,400,000, without authorization.

The Court accepted that crimes like robbery often occur at night, relying on a single identifying witness. Citing Abdullah Nabulere & 2 Others v Uganda (Cr. App. No. 9 of 1978), the Court noted that the reliability of such evidence depends on the conditions and the witness’s prior familiarity with the accused. The complainant had known the accused for over a year and identified him by moonlight—rendering the identification credible.

As one historian notes, the colonial judiciary was “an ‘integral part of the oppressive apparatus of the state’… created by the colonial state to guarantee law, order and its ultimate preservation”.[3] Parallel “native” courts, kingships’ Lukiiko in Buganda, Ankole, Toro and Bunyoro continued limited local customary adjudication, but these were subordinate and eventually dismantled.

The court clarified that the suit land is not ancestral but part of Adonia’s estate, emphasizing the importance of proper estate distribution and title transfer. The court clarified that Buganda customs of heirship do not confer exclusive ownership emphasizes the primacy of legal title and estate administration in determining property rights.

The court agreed with the Respondent that only the court issuing the order (Chief Magistrates Court of Entebbe) had jurisdiction to hear contempt proceedings, citing Florence Dawaru v. Angumale Abino & Anor and Kibeedi Hussein v. Hotel Triangle Ltd. The transfer of the lower court’s file to the High Court for Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2024 did not confer jurisdiction to the High Court to determine contempt of the lower court’s order.

Under Section 123 of the RTA, only persons with a demonstrable legal or equitable interest may lodge a caveat. Mere allegations of interest are insufficient. The court emphasized that bare assertions do not constitute a “caveatable interest.” Citing Rutungo Properties Ltd v Linda Harriet Carrington & Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2010), the judge held that a caveat is akin to an interlocutory injunction and cannot subsist indefinitely without active pursuit

The Court cited Section 7 of the Penal Code Act, which protects persons acting under an honest claim of right. However, both appellants admitted lacking any written proof of ownership, and even acknowledged that their grandmother had given the land to the complainant. The Court held that their claim was dishonest and unsupported, and thus not protected under Section 7. The trial magistrate had properly dismissed this defence, following authorities such as Opio Enrico v Uganda

The Court observed that although the Defendants did not produce any witness testimony in their defence, this omission did not in itself shift the evidential burden onto them. It reaffirmed the settled legal principle that a defendant’s failure to call witnesses does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to judgment; the plaintiff must still discharge the primary burden of proof through cogent and credible evidence. Citing the reasoning in Tucker Mubiru v Attorney General, C

The Court emphasized that, unless there is proof of a system failure or glitch, service through ECCMIS is legally valid and effective, having the same legal effect as personal or physical service.

The court distinguished between suits instituted against a deceased person (void ab initio) and those where a party dies during pendency (which may continue with proper substitution). Citing Ddamba Susan v. John W. Katende & Fredrick Ssempebwa and other precedents, the court held that a suit against a deceased person is a nullity and cannot be cured by amendment. The Notice of Motion was further defective for failing to state grounds and lacking an authorized court official’s

The High Court emphasized that no rights to intestate property can be established without letters of administration. It also invoked Sections 16 and 17(2)(a) of the Judicature Act to exercise supervisory powers, prevent abuse of process, and avoid multiple suits by converting aspects of the case into an administration cause. Reference was made to precedent in Kiiza v Uganda (Misc. Application No. 118 of 2025) for using inherent powers to address legislative gaps.

the Court has suspended the invalidity for 36 months to allow Parliament to enact remedial legislation. In the interim, it has ordered an immediate reading-in to the BCEA, entitling both parents to share a total of four months and 10 days of paid parental leave. This reform promotes gender equality, parental dignity, and flexible childcare arrangements, with significant implications for employers, employees, and the state. No interim changes apply to UIF benefits pending furt

The Court reaffirmed that under Section 13(3) of the Act, any assignment or license of copyright must be in writing and signed by the rights holder; implied consent or oral agreements are legally insufficient. The Court noted that MK Publishers altered, adapted, and sold four of the Plaintiff’s stories to the Government of Rwanda without any written license or authorization. The Court found that such unauthorized adaptation and reproduction constituted infringement of the Pla

The Court observed that the Administrator General is vested with statutory and fiduciary duties to exercise due diligence when issuing Certificates of No Objection. It noted that in this case, the 2nd Defendant ignored clear records in the Succession Register showing that the deceased had died in 1939 and that his estate had already been distributed. By nevertheless issuing a Certificate of No Objection in 2008, the Administrator General failed in its public duty of care. The

The court reaffirmed that a widow is the most suitable person to obtain a representation of her deceased husband's estate. In the normal case of events, she is the person who would rightfully, properly, and honestly safeguard the assets of the estate for herself and her children. Given their fraudulent conduct and unilateral dealings with estate property, the Court found the Plaintiffs unsuitable to administer the estate.

The High Court affirmed its unlimited original jurisdiction to entertain divorce petitions under Article 139(1) of the Constitution, even where both parties are Africans (per Section 3 of the Divorce Act), particularly to avoid procedural delays in cases potentially involving matrimonial assets exceeding UGX 50,000,000. However, the Court emphasized strict adherence to territorial jurisdiction under Section 15(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, transferring the matter to the High

The FIFA Legal Handbook contains updated FIFA Rules and Regulations, statutory documents, legal guides, and circulars, offering a comprehensive overview of football's governing body's legal frameworks. It includes essential documents like the FIFA Governance Regulations, the FIFA Disciplinary Code, the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and the FIFA Clearing House Regulations, providing guidance to the global football community.

Contracts can be implied or modified by parties' actions, even if not strictly following written terms. Here, the Defendant's continued engagement (e.g., demand letters, referrals to sales staff) waived strict deposit requirements, creating enforceable obligations. Demands for payment must align with agreed terms (e.g., phased vs. lump sum). Sellers must provide reasonable notice of construction progress and deadlines, especially in delayed projects, to avoid breach claims.

The court established that the Investment and Share Agreement of September 25, 2019, ratified the earlier agreement, as evidenced by the consistent 71% shareholding allocation and the parties’ conduct. Applying the objective test of contractual interpretation, the court clarified that a reasonable person, with knowledge of the parties’ prior dealings, would interpret the agreement as formalizing prior contributions.