Lawpoint Uganda

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.

As the Court warned: “It is likely that a party who markets and sells products under a trademark owned by another party may destroy and/or hide those products if it is alerted of the legal consequences of its conduct.”

Quoting Justice Madrama JSC in Byakika, the Industrial Court reaffirmed that “The Labour Officer is an office of first instance, rather than a court, not vested with judicial power, and therefore incapable of issuing a lawful court order.”

It’s trite that in an application of such a nature courts will consider the justice of the case to ascertain whether to vacate the caveat or not, I am of the finding that the justice of this case and the balance of convenience would in my opinion require that the caveat lodged by the 1st respondent vide instrument number KCCA-0015483 be maintained.

The court criticized both parties for deviating from the framed ground of appeal and the trial record. An appeal must be grounded in the record of proceedings, except in cases of clear illegality or procedural defects causing a miscarriage of justice. The appellants’ concession of trespass effectively nullified their appeal, as they failed to demonstrate errors in the trial court’s evaluation or findings.

The Court further cited the case of Ochit Labwor Patrick v Uganda, Criminal App No. 15 of 1998, stating that the proper and most appropriate approach is to amend the charges and charge persons who perform sexual acts with children with the offence of either simple defilement or aggravated defilement. However, the Court emphasized that this statement is subject to cautious interpretation. In the absence of amendments to the written law, prosecutors still retain the discretion

Relying on comparative jurisprudence, including US v Briscoe (7th Cir. 1990), Union Trade Centre Ltd v Attorney General of Rwanda, and R v Masqud Ali & Asiq Hussan (1965), the Court stressed that admissibility hinges on the accuracy, authenticity, and ability of the opposing party to test the reliability of electronic evidence.

The court distinguished Betty Tinkamanyire v. Bank of Uganda, noting that the case involved a contract that explicitly violated mandatory statutory protections, whereas the appellants’ contracts were consistent with the Employment Act’s allowance for mutually agreed terms. The court further held that not all employment contracts must include terminal benefits, and the appellants’ voluntary acceptance of the contract terms estopped them from claiming benefits outside those ter

The Court applied the test in Sibamanyo Estates Ltd v Equity Bank & Others, identifying three requirements for compulsory production: 1) Relevance, materiality, and admissibility of documents; 2) Possession or control of the documents by the opposing party; 3) Prior attempt at voluntary cooperation (notice to produce). the Court ruled that the documents were relevant, within the Attorney General’s control, and must be produced. The respondents were ordered to disclose the doc

The Court observed that the position under section 9(1) (e) of the Local Council Courts Act, cap 18, section 76A of the Land Act, cap227 and section 30 of the Land (Amendment) Act, 2004 which vested power in the local council courts to try and determine all matters relating to land as courts of first instance, as repealed laws. That these laws have now been repealed by section 77(1) (C) of the Land Act Cap 236, which states that the only court that has jurisdiction to determi

The Constitutional Court upheld the freedom from discrimination as enshrined in the 1995 Constitution.[5] Building on the gains from past decisions specifically the case of Uganda Association of Women Lawyers V Attorney general.[6] It ought to be remembered that court in FIDA court found the requirement for women to prove at least two grounds while men are only required to prove only one ground to be unconstitutional as it promotes gender-based discrimination.

The Court clarified that oral transfers of customary land are enforceable without a written deed, as long as the gift is perfected by the donor's intent, delivery of the property, acceptance by the donee, and exclusive possession/use during the donor's lifetime. This distinguishes customary land from registered land, where formalities like deeds may apply (citing precedents like Oyet Bosco & Anor v Abwola Vincent [2018] UGHCCD 65)

The Court of Appeal clarified that lending money to Ugandan entities without a physical address or ongoing business does not amount to carrying on business requiring registration. The trial judge erred in treating the appellant as a “nonentity.” Allowing respondents to sue the appellant in earlier proceedings, but then objecting to its capacity when it counter-sued, amounted to approbating and reprobating—contrary to Article 21(1) of the Constitution (equal protection before

Court citing order 43 (1) and (2) noted that an appeal is a separate trial on judgement of a lower court. An appeal differs from a regular trial or review. Court further made emphasis that the form of a trial and that of an appeal cannot be the same. In a trial, issues are framed for resolution, while on appeal, grounds of appeal or reasons for disagreement with the trial court are framed for resolution. Court further noted that confusing a trial and appeal was a clear act of

Court observed that an individual who intends to transact at the personal level should not hide under the image of a company and deny a party the right to or right to a claim. Court further observed that the powers of court on revision are very limited.Citing the cases of Joseph Ntibaza V Majambere Ronald Misc.Application No.005 of 2024 and Kehooda Immaculate and Rwabuhe Johnson V Lyamujungu co-operative financial services,Revision Application No.002 of 2025...Court stated th

Hampson traces the word advocate from its classical roots in Rome through to its technical role in the adversarial system. What emerges is a reminder that the advocate is neither a hired mouthpiece nor a self-serving orator, but an essential actor in the discovery of truth. Drawing on English legal history, and anchoring his arguments in cases such as Jones v National Coal Board [1957] 2 QB 61, he reveals that justice is not served by judicial overreach or inquisitorial meddl

The court emphaised that constructive notice arises only upon proper registration. A registered caveat or instrument gives constructive notice to the world, whether or not a purchaser has actual knowledge. This principle is central in determining the duty of disclosure: if a claim is not yet registered, it may not constitute an encumbrance binding on the seller

For a gift inter vivos in unregistered land, donor intention and donee acceptance are required. By erroneously finding that the 1st Respondent had authority to sell and that the 2nd Respondent acquired lawful ownership, the trial court deprived the Appellant of her rights in family land.

The Court found that, under Section 46(1) Contracts Act, where time is of the essence and a party fails to perform, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the promisee. Equity will not order specific performance where the claimant is the party in breach (see Nipuni Bhatia v Boutique Shazim Ltd [2015]).

Relying on Justine E.M.N. Lutaya v. Stirling Civil Engineering Co. Ltd, the Court emphasized that trespass occurs where there is unauthorized interference with lawful possession, whether physical or legal. The Plaintiff, as administrator, had legal possession of the land forming part of the estate.

While the Respondent bore most of the development burden, the Court held that equity required recognition of the Appellant’s contributions and long-term cohabitation. The Court determined that the Appellant was entitled to a proportionate share of the property to prevent him from leaving “empty-handed,” even if he did not directly fund most of the developments.

It is a well-established legal principle that when a document containing contractual terms is signed, then in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, the party signing it is bound, and it is wholly immaterial whether he has read the document or not. The appellant acknowledged his indebtedness under the agreement and further conceded that in default, the loan would translate into a sale. He testified that he signed the agreement because he was in need of money, which the re

The Court clarified that while banks must reverse erroneous credits within a reasonable time, even long delays do not oblige payment if no funds ever existed.