Lawpoint Uganda

The court reiterated that the defendants treated the estate as personal property, fraudulently transferring titles without beneficiary consent. It further clarified that such actions breached fiduciary duties, as administrators hold property in trust for beneficiaries, not for personal enrichment, citing Christine Nazziwa v. Ismael Nyombi Gawera & Anor and the persuasive Kenyan case Re: Estate of Julius Mimano (2019 KLR).

The Court held that a binding sublicence agreement was formed based on an email from the sublicensee confirming its intention to acquire FIFA Club World Cup media rights with key terms (rights, territory, exclusivity, financials); and the sublicensor’s reply accepting the offer and confirming a contract draft would follow. These exchanges, supported by extensive WhatsApp and email correspondence, created a binding agreement despite the absence of a signed formal contract.

The court clarified that, while Regulations 40(1) and (3) of the Financial Institutions (Credit Reference Bureau) Regulations, 2022, impose on CRBs the duty to investigate complaints within seven working days and require financial institutions to notify CRBs immediately upon receiving such grievances, banks nonetheless retain a critical obligation to submit updated settlement data to the CRB within 30 days of discharge, as affirmed in the testimony of DW1 (the defendant's wit

The Court observed that the respondent's claim for UGX 30,067,542,200 was supported by the unchallenged valuation report of professional surveyor Mr. Obali Godwin, detailing market value for the 1,531.96-hectare suit land in Katikara, it eaffirmed the constitutional imperative under Article 26(2) for full market-value compensation in cases of unlawful deprivation by state agencies like the OPM, citing Attorney General v Henleg Property Developers Ltd (CA No. 421 of 2017, uphe

a statute “is not passed in a vacuum, but in a framework of circumstances, so as to give a remedy for a known state of affairs.” The court emphasised that the purpose of the Mortgage Act is not to furnish borrowers with technical loopholes to stall repayment but to balance borrower protections with the lender’s legitimate right to prompt enforcement. Technical breaches should not be elevated above the broader policy goals of market stability, efficient debt recovery, and sup

The Court observed that the discrepancies in will copies (e.g., formatting, lines) were "glaringly clear" and non-trivial, contradicting DW2's "one copy" testimony. Language conflict (Runyankole vs. English) undermined authenticity, with DW2's clarification unconvincing. As an illiterate, Erina required a jurat under Section 3 Illiterates Protection Act confirming explanation in her language—absent here, rendering it substantively invalid (Kasaala Growers, supra; Violet Nakiu

This case reinforces that procedural defects will not automatically nullify proceedings unless they cause injustice. Sentencing courts must deduct remand time to avoid illegality, while appellate courts will correct reliance on inadmissible evidence but still uphold convictions if other evidence suffices. Compensation remains discretionary but must be reasonable and justified.

An accused need not participate in all stages of trafficking to be guilty; involvement in any part of the chain (e.g., planning, recruitment) suffices (Muhwezi v. Uganda, 2022; Bernard Onyandi v. Republic, [2018] eKLR). On aggravated trafficking in children, the Court, drawing from Bernard Onyandi v Republic [2018] eKLR, clarified that liability arises even if an accused only participates in one stage of the trafficking process. Finally, while departing from the assessors’ op

The High Court affirmed the Respondent as the lawful owner of the suit land and upheld the trial court’s award of vacant possession, permanent injunction, and UGX 10,000,000 general damages.

The Court examined Sections 67 and 70 of the Electricity Act. Section 67(1) permits a licensee to place electric supply lines on private land but requires minimal damage, prompt compensation, and, under Section 67(2) and (4), prior notice and consent of the landowner unless otherwise agreed. ERA’s jurisdiction under Section 70 is limited to compensation disputes where consent was sought and the landowner disagreed with valuation/compensation. Where a licensee enters land with

The Registrar found that the goods in Classes 32 and 33 (alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages) are closely related, as they are sold through similar channels (e.g., liquor stores, supermarkets) and target the same consumer base. Citing British Sugar plc v James Robertson & Sons Ltd (1996), the Registrar emphasized that similarity in goods and trade channels heightens the risk of confusion. The Registrar concluded that the “BLACK ZEBRA” marks were confusingly similar to the A

The court held that adverse possession was not pleaded, violating Order 7 Rule 1(e) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which mandates disclosing the cause of action. The claim was introduced belatedly in submissions, constituting trial by ambush. Even on merits, the appellants failed to prove factual possession, continuous 12-year occupation, animus possidendi, or non-permissive use. The respondents’ family maintained possession, and the appellants’ use was fragmented and permissi

Article 26 guarantees the right to own and use property without interference. The court found that the caveat emptor and statutory instrument disrupted the plaintiffs’ development plans, as evidenced by stalled construction observed during the locus visit. The court defined unlawful interference as a violation of proprietary or possessory rights. The notices affected the plaintiffs’ proprietary rights by restricting their ability to deal with the land. This issue was resolved

The Supreme Court observed that Section 26(1) allows courts to vary the rate of interest if it is harsh and unconscionable but does not permit changing the type of interest (e.g., from compound to simple). The High Court erred in citing Section 26(2) and (3) but inadvertently complied with Section 26(1) by reducing the rate to 15% while preserving compound interest. The Court of Appeal erred by substituting compound interest with simple interest, as Section 26(1) limits judic

Citing Israel Kabwa vs. Martin Banoba Musiga (supra), where the Supreme Court held that a customary heir can sue on behalf of an estate without Letters of Administration, as they are entitled to a share of the estate under the Succession Act (as amended by Decree No. 22 of 1972). Moreover, Civil Suit No. 11 of 2009 sought revocation of Letters of Administration (filed in the Family Division), while the current suit seeks recovery of land and cancellation of the 4th defendant’

The Court distinguished between licensing (proof of registration and authority to operate) and legal capacity to sue (which rests with a duly constituted Management Committee). Since the applicant failed to produce proof of a legally established Management Committee, it was deemed a non-existent entity in law. The Trustees of Rubaga Miracle Centre v. Mulangira Ssimbwa, MA No. 576 of 2006, a legal action instituted by non-existent entities is incompetent.

The Court observed that both the LC II Committee and the complainant supported bail, with the complainant explicitly stating the Applicant was not involved in the murder. This strengthened the Applicant’s case and assured the Court of minimal risk of community hostility or interference with investigations.

The Court observed: “Acts or omissions by the employer that hinder the contractor’s ability to meet a contractual deadline…is referred to as an employer’s ‘prevention.’ This principle prevents the employer from benefiting from their own prevention that causes delays or disruptions by insisting on the original completion date or claiming liquidated damages for delays caused by the employer’s actions.”

The Court emphasized that although locus visits are not always mandatory, they are recommended under Practice Direction No. 1 of 2007, especially in land disputes. The Magistrate’s failure to visit the locus created ambiguity about the exact portion of land awarded and prejudiced Bwire’s case. The Court held that Bwire did not prove customary ownership or any legally enforceable right to the land. Evidence strongly supported Nakirya’s claim that she received the land as a val

The Court observed that, mere filing of a Notice of Appeal does not constitute a competent appeal. By failing to file the memorandum and record of appeal within the statutory 60 days, the appeal was deemed withdrawn under Rule 84. The court described counsel’s conduct as dilatory and inexcusable. Because there was no competent appeal, the court held there was nothing to evaluate for the likelihood of success. The applicants’ intended grounds of appeal, which challenged the se

In defining what amounts to sufficient cause, the Court relied on the authority of Captain Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owota, SCCA No. 14 of 2001, where it was held that sufficient cause may include illness of a party or mistake of counsel, but that failure to instruct an advocate does not constitute sufficient cause. The Court further cited Dhillon & Another v Dhillon [2006] 1 EA 66–67, which reaffirmed that the overriding concern of the Court is to do justice between the

The court reaffirmed that A suit instituted against a deceased person is void ab initio and cannot be cured by amendment, unlike a case where a defendant dies during the suit’s pendency, where legal representatives can be substituted citing Abdala Ramathan v. Agony Swaib MCA No. 0067 of 2016.

The court relied on Section 27 of the Traffic and Road Safety Act, which establishes a rebuttable presumption of ownership based on registration. The court applied the doctrine of respondeat superior, as articulated in Muwonge v. Attorney General (1967) holding that a master is liable for a servant’s actions within the course of employment, even without formal employment.

The Court affirmed that the IGG has constitutional and statutory authority to prosecute corruption and theft of public funds, even against private persons, without DPP consent. An indictment need not be signed personally by the IGG, as long as it is signed by an authorized officer of the Inspectorate. The indictment here was valid.