Lawpoint Uganda

“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

Whereas the English court emphasized core immunity as a protective shield—ensuring participants can engage freely in proceedings without fear of personal liability, even for inadvertent errors—the Ugandan court’s stance reflects an inclination to weaponize contempt as a deterrent against outspoken criticism of judicial authority.

Contempt of Court may be classified as either (1) Criminal Contempt, consisting of words or acts which impede or interfere with the administration of justice, or which create a substantial risk that the course of justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced; or (2) contempt in procedure, otherwise known as civil contempt, consisting of disobedience to the judgment, orders or other process of the Court and involving a private injury..

The applicant’s reliance on WhatsApp messages to prove an alleged term that two acres of land were to be in a waterlogged area and three acres on dry land was rejected. The Court held that the messages only confirmed pricing and did not evidence any contractual obligation regarding the nature of the land. It emphasised that only terms expressly incorporated in a written contract are enforceable, and alleged oral variations or assumptions must be strictly proved. While electro

Under Section 93(1) of the Employment Act and Regulation 45(1) of the Employment Regulations, S.I. No. 61 of 2011, an appeal from a Labour Officer’s decision is initiated by filing a notice of appeal within 30 days in the form prescribed in the Seventeenth Schedule.

The Court held that Section 34 CPA is a directive to the court, not a bar to parties filing a suit. It aims to save judicial time and costs but does not invalidate proceedings filed by plaint. “It is my understanding that this provision does not dictate the nature of proceedings whether by application or plaint… It is instructive to court and not the parties.” the judge emphasized that the section permits courts to treat execution proceedings as a suit, and hence, this suit

The Court emphasized that assessors must exercise caution when recommending conviction based solely on the testimony of a single identifying witness. Citing Abdallah bin Wendo and Another v R (1953) 20 EACA 166, the Court stated that the evidence of a single witness regarding identification must be scrutinized with the greatest care. Furthermore, the Court held that the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime must be carefully evaluated to determine whether reli

Facts Adler Construction Company Ltd (the Applicant) applied under Section 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Cap. 4 and...