Lawpoint Uganda

The Court cited the statutory position that: “Where the enforcement of a security interest is commenced by a secured creditor other than the secured creditor whose right has priority over that of the enforcing creditor, the secured creditor shall be entitled to take over the enforcement at any time before the sale of the collateral.” The Court further observed that lodging a caveat promptly—as was done on 18th August 2022—solidifies a creditor’s priority under the Security I

The court found the 2018 customary marriage void ab initio under Section 11(e), which voids any customary marriage where "one of the parties has previously contracted a monogamous marriage which is still subsisting." The provision "is clear, unambiguous, and operates automatically by force of law" and "does not require any decree of court to render such a marriage void." Citing Elizabeth Nalumansi Wamala v. Tolly Kasande, the court noted: "void marriages are treated as non-ex

The court found that the contradictory locations of signing (Rakai, Rwanda, Kisoro) undermined credibility. The appellant’s own witnesses conceded that the land was family land already sold earlier to the respondent. The court held that no beneficiary of the late Bahenga Yesaya could pass title without letters of administration. “Any right to the intestate’s property can only be established when letters of administration are granted by court.” — Buzandora Charles v Ndiroheye

"The catch phrase under Section 290h-4 (a) (1) & (2) of the USADF ACT /ADF ACT U.S Code Title 22, Chapter 71, is that the African Development Foundation, as a body corporate, can sue or be sued in any court of competent jurisdiction. My understanding of this provision is that, the use of the words 'any court of competent jurisdiction' in the enactment provision which establishes the African Development Foundation is a symbolisation of an expression of lack of restriction in f

The Court reiterated that in applications for enlargement of time, the decisive consideration is whether the litigant has taken affirmative steps to correct procedural mistakes and actively pursue their rights. Courts must assess whether parties or their advocates have demonstrated diligence in curing defects. Ultimately, the Court underscored that the judicial system exists to safeguard the rule of law and prevent conflicts,especially in land matters within the Kabale circui

Under section 199 of the Succession Act, a surviving spouse ordinarily has the first right to be appointed administrator. However, this right is not absolute and may be limited by considerations of impartiality, competence, or fairness to other beneficiaries.

Revision is not a substitute for appeal or review. It targets only jurisdictional excesses or material irregularities causing "failure of justice." Mere evidentiary defects (e.g., affidavit authorization) do not suffice unless they vitiate the court's power to act. Litigants should prioritize appeals for such issues to avoid summary dismissal.

“For one to claim an interest in land, he or she must show that he or she acquired an interest or title from someone who previously had an interest or title thereon.”

“The interpretation of contracts is essential in ensuring that parties understand the rights and obligations outlined within the agreement. When disputes arise, the court’s primary objective is to ascertain the intention of the parties based on the language used in the contract.”

The Court deemed the prosecution witnesses “credible and believable” and found “sufficient corroboration” in their testimonies and documentary evidence.Conversely, the defence was described as “a half-hearted denial” lacking “logical consistency,” consistent with the standard in Ojera v. Labeja, Civil Appeal No. 0020 of 2013.

The Court emphasized that compliance with Order 11A, Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules is mandatory. The Rule stipulates that where a plaint has been filed, the plaintiff must take out summons for directions within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of the last reply or rejoinder.

Simply training AI on copyright works doesn’t breach UK copyright law—unless the model actually stores or reproduces those works. But if AI-generated images copy protected trade marks, like watermarks, there’s a real risk of infringement. Thus setting an important precedent for both tech and creative industries.

 The Court faulted the trial magistrate for ignoring succession law during the locus visit, where the record (p. 18) shows counsel noting: "Bikangiso: When we went to locus, this court advised that since the defendant died, there was need to appoint an administrator to see whether the 1st defendant left properties to this estate and also to see whether this matter can be settled out of court." The Court proceeded "on an impermissible error," as "the correct law for resolution

“Mathematical precision and exactitude are not attributes of property valuation; at best, valuation is an opinion based on technical expertise and prevailing market factors.”

The Court observed that Uganda operates a hybrid system prioritizing filing but recognizing prior good faith use (Section 41). The appellant's 2012 filing and 2006 use trumped the respondent's 2013 registration: "The 'first to file' principle in trademark registration grants exclusive rights to the applicant who files a trademark application first... By virtue of section 41 of The Trade Marks Act, first-to-use elements exist within what is primarily a first-to-file system...

Once a judgment is entered, the trial court cannot revisit it except through review or appeal: “The general principle is that as soon as a judgment or order is pronounced, the court becomes functus officio.”

“To establish desertion, two things must be proved: first certain outward and physical conduct – the factum deserendi – and secondly the animus deserendi – the intention underlying this conduct to bring the matrimonial union to an end.”

privity of contract means “the relationship between the parties to a contract, allowing them to sue each other but preventing a third party from doing so.” Accordingly, a person who is not a party to a contract cannot enforce it — a rule that extends to insurance contracts.

"Once authenticity of a document is challenged, the evidential burden shifts to the party asserting its validity (Section 101, Evidence Act). The Defendant, having raised novation, bore this burden but did not discharge it. The document was never properly tendered or admitted as an exhibit. It therefore carries no probative value (Des Raj Sharma v Reginam [1953] 19 EACA 310; Kibalama v Sajjabi [1988–90] HCB 84)."

The test for a prima facie case, as per Rananlal T. Bhatt v R [1957] EA 332, is whether the evidence could convict if no defense is offered. This was reinforced by Uganda v Drasiku (Criminal Case No. 14 of 2013) and Uganda v Bwambale Nathan and 2 Others (HCT-25-CR-SC-0017-2024), emphasizing that a mere "scintilla" of worthless evidence is insufficient.

The Court held that the 2009 amendment was prospective, not retrospective. The Respondent resigned after its enactment, so it lawfully applied to him. “It is clear to my mind that the impugned amendment was prospective, not retrospective. The trial Judge’s finding to the contrary was based on the incorrect premise that a right existed under the old regime.”

On general damages, the Court rejected the claim for “psychological torture” noting that such a claim must meet the threshold under the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act, Cap 130, stating: “Psychological torture cannot be pleaded under general damages since it has to be specifically proven… the facts in this case do not meet the parameters of psychological torture.”

The Court rejected the plaintiff's narrow view that objections must be purely points of law, noting: "In short, the argument by the plaintiff, that a preliminary objection must be purely on a point of law, doesn't hold water. What would be the fate of a catch all of objections? A point of law may arise from a factual omission... A better categorization of a preliminary objection is whether it goes to the root of the cause of action or is a diversion from considering the suit

The Court rejected the defenses of non est factum and procedural unconscionability but intervened on substantive unconscionability grounds to reduce excessive interest rates. It underscored the heavy evidentiary burden on borrowers alleging forgery or illiteracy-based defenses, reaffirmed that repealed laws continue to apply to vested contractual rights, and confirmed the Court’s equitable jurisdiction to reopen harsh or oppressive loan terms.