Lawpoint Uganda

The rule of law is the bedrock of any functional society and is especially critical in the realm of employment relations. It ensures that both employers and employees operate within a framework of fairness, transparency, and accountability. In Uganda, as in many jurisdictions, the Employment Act and principles of natural justice serve as guiding lights for resolving workplace disputes.

The Court held that in cases of charitable donations, a donor cannot reclaim land simply because its use has changed, unless the donation was made subject to expressly attached legal conditions, which were later breached. Absent such conditions, the court found that trustees retain discretion to manage and even lease trust property, provided that the core objectives of the trust—such as religious or educational use—are not abandoned. Leasing parts of the land, therefore, does

A certificate of title is conclusive under the RTA unless fraud is proven. Lease offers issued over titled land are invalid if the land is not available or is disputed.

The appellate court emphasized that the validity of the mortgage was a mixed issue of law and fact, requiring evidence which had not been adduced.

The Court warned against third parties – including schools and even courts – confusing parental disputes (such as divorce) with the legal rights of children. It emphasized that economic hardship or parental separation does not justify undermining a parent’s constitutional rights to raise and care for their child.

The court observed that where a contract contains a valid and enforceable arbitration clause, courts are obliged to refer disputes to arbitration unless the clause is null, void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed.

A consent judgment becomes binding once signed by the parties and endorsed by the court. It may only be set aside on limited grounds such as fraud, collusion, or ignorance of material facts

The court further clarified that Rule 7(3) is two-pronged; the first limb directs a respondent to file any intended affidavit “as soon as practicable.” The second limb, which includes the 56-day timeframe, only applies when the applicant has amended their motion or filed additional affidavits, thereby triggering a reciprocal right for the respondent to reply within that set period.

Citing Order 17 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), the Court emphasized that failure to perform “any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed”, including filing submissions, can result in the Court proceeding without considering the defaulting party’s input.

The Court should therefore exercise caution before issuing such orders. However, when certain circumstances arise and make it desirable and imperative that a body be exhumed, the court will not unnecessarily fetter its discretion but will order such exhumation to meet the ends of justice. In the instant case, I have come to believe that it is in the best interest of all the parties that the paternity test is conducted through exhumation of the remains of the late Nsereko Geor

The High Court clarified that a person administering an estate must first register land in their representative capacity before transferring it into their name; failure to do so is irregular and may be contested. Also, claims grounded in customary inheritance must demonstrate the existence and application of specific customs, not merely invoke cultural norms.

In the present case, the Court held that a competent notice of appeal is one that bears the endorsement of the Registrar, in accordance with Rule 76(1) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions (SI 13-10), which mandates that a notice of appeal be lodged in duplicate with the Registrar of the High Court. Non-compliance with this procedural requirement renders the application incurably defective and liable to be struck out.

A reinstatement of the suit will not occasion any prejudice to the Respondent… On the other hand, the Applicant has the right to be heard in the main suit, which is protected by Article 28 of the Constitution

The Court asserted that the framers of the Act deliberately imposed strict timelines that must be adhered to. While recognising that courts are empowered under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities, she stressed that this discretion must not be used to undermine the clear intent of statutory deadlines.

It is settled that an election is not an event but an elaborate process consisting of several stages which climax into voting, counting and tallying of votes, and final declaration of the winner by gazettement. As such, when faced with an Election Petition, the court has to analyse and evaluate the entire electoral process and not restrict itself to the polling day activities only

The Tribunal found that the failure or omission by the Applicant to supply samples as instructed by the bidding document was a material deviation that would in a substantial way, affect the quality of the supplies to be procured and would ultimately affect the ability of the applicant to perform the proposed contract contrary to Regulation 7(4) a) and b) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations, 2023. Therefore the Evaluation Committee

While the Court acknowledged Article 41 of the Constitution and section 4 of the Access to Information Act, it emphasized that access to such information is governed by clear procedures set out in the Act. These include submitting a formal written request to the relevant information officer and, where access is denied, appealing first to the Chief Magistrate's Court under section 36 of the Access to Information Act.

The law says that if this 28-day step is not taken, the case “abates.” In simple terms, this means the case is automatically brought to an end, not because the claim is weak, but because the person bringing the case failed to follow the procedure on time. This rule is found in Order 11A of the Civil Procedure Rules, which was updated in 2019 to help courts handle cases faster and avoid unnecessary delays.

If suspicions arise surrounding the execution of a will, the court will apply the judicial conscience test to determine its validity. This involves assessing the testator's understanding of the will's content, consequences, and effect, as well as their mental soundness and free will at the time of execution.h

The High Court's decision in Nambi Faridah Kigongo v. Luyimbazi Elias Nalukoola and Electoral Commission, rendered on 26 May 2025, is more than a routine election petition ruling. At face value, the Court invalidated the victory of the National Unity Platform (NUP) candidate Elias Nalukoola in Kawempe North due to significant irregularities, namely, the failure to return results from 14 polling stations, and the Respondent’s personal violation of campaign laws on polling day.

Despite establishing that Ms. Katende suffers from mental illness, the application was dismissed due to failure to prove the other two essential grounds. Applications under the Mental Health Act for management of the affairs of persons with mental illness must be supported by: Conclusive medical evidence, Proof of entitlement or legal interest in the subject’s estate, and Evidence of fitness and integrity of the applicants.

The court affirmed that Equity will bar a landowner from asserting legal rights if they encouraged another to believe they had an interest in the property and act to their detriment, as stated in Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] 1 Ch.183, Ramsden v Dyson (1866) LR 1 HL 129.

With the world shifting toward sustainability, carbon trading is becoming a powerful tool in the fight against climate change. But how can Uganda fully harness this emerging opportunity? What legal, financial, and environmental challenges lie ahead—and how can the legal profession play a central role in shaping this landscape?

The court made a comparative reference to the U.S. case Hohenzheft v Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2024) 318 Cal.Rptr.3d 475, where the court ruled that arbitrators cannot unilaterally extend time limits. The Ugandan legal position differs, but the Court noted that this ambiguity warrants legislative review.