Lawpoint Uganda

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.

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.