Lawpoint Uganda

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.

Whereas the plaintiff lacks locus standi, the same does not justify the defendant’s inability to fulfill his obligations... failure to file an inventory is a just cause for revocation... the filing of an inventory is a court order premised on the wording of the grant, the breach of which is punishable... In the premises, it is my considered opinion that just cause has been furnished to warrant the revocation of the letters of administration.”

The Court clarified that undeveloped or unoccupied land rarely qualifies as family land under Section 39(4) of the Land Act, Cap. 236, which defines family land as property (a) on which the family ordinarily resides, (b) from which the family derives sustenance, or (c) which the family voluntarily agrees to treat as such. The evidence before the Court showed that “the land was bush and undeveloped, without residence or cultivation.” Accordingly, Justice Bareebe held that vaca

The Court agreed that the purported retirement was a deliberate attempt to evade disciplinary proceedings. “An employee’s retirement notice aimed at evading a disciplinary process is unacceptable… such a notice can be lawfully disregarded if it is a tactic to escape disciplinary proceedings.” (Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd v Rabindranath Choubey [2020] 18 SCC 71, Supreme Court of India).

While the Applicant argued he had been detained beyond the 180 days under Article 23(6)(c) and Paragraph 10(1) of the Bail Guidelines, the Court found otherwise, noting he had been committed within six months of arrest. The Judge acknowledged conflicting High Court precedents — Kato Henry v Uganda [2025] UGHCCRD 21 (Muwata, J) and Mulema Ali alias Frank v Uganda [2025] UGHC 717 (Lamuno, J) — but emphasized a pragmatic approach: “Bail in whatever form, be it discretionary or m

While the Court’s reasoning on proportionality promotes access to justice, it also risks undermining the economic value of legal expertise in complex, high-stakes commercial litigation. If courts begin to significantly downplay the financial and intellectual demands of such cases, it could discourage advocates from taking on major commercial or appellate matters, especially where fees are subject to post-facto judicial moderation.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction, starting from the principle that the High Court's jurisdiction is unlimited unless constitutionally limited (Article 139(1); Koboko District Local Government v Okujjo Swali HCMA No. 1 of 2016: "jurisdiction is the first test in the legal authority of a Court, and its absence disqualifies the Court from exercising any of its powers"). Exclusive clauses are generally enforceable (Uganda Telecom v Rodrigo Chacon t/a Andes Alps Trading HCMA No

The Court found that the Registrar acted without jurisdiction when he rescinded the Applicant’s declaration after duly declaring results. Once he declared a winner, he became functus officio. “I find that the NRM District Registrar acted illegally when he rescinded the declaration of the Applicant to declare the 2nd Respondent as NRM Constituency Flag bearer... because he did not have such powers and he was functus officio.” The Court agreed with the Kenyan Supreme Court prec

The Court referred to Practice Direction No. 1 of 2007, emphasizing that: “During the hearing of land disputes, the court should ensure that parties and their witnesses are present at the locus, evidence is adduced, and proceedings are recorded.” Justice Echakokit found no procedural irregularity that prejudiced the Appellant, holding that the Chief Magistrate’s approach substantially complied with the requirements.

The Court emphasized under section 3(e) and (g) of the Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice Directions), 2022 that the purpose for this guidelines is "promoting the balancing of the rights of the accused, against the public interest and the rights of the complainants. Court further cited the case of Mivumbi Richard v Uganda Crim. Misc Appl. No. 29 of 2025 and stated that it is important for both applicants and the prosecution to carefully evaluate