Lawpoint Uganda

“Transmission of the court process with a hyperlink to the electronic document constitutes service of the filed document within the meaning of Order 5, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules and no other service on those parties is required.” “Save for a proven system failure, glitch or similar occurrence, delivery of e-service documents through ECCMIS to other registered and linked users on the respective electronic file is considered valid and effective service and has the sam

The Court rejected reliance on a social media-sourced decision: "The use of a decision got from social media (WhatsApp) to base her petition was like using the UNEB results sent via an SMS to the students. The result may be right but no institution will admit a student on the basis of those results sent by SMS. The institutions will usually insist on the official result slip issued by the awarding institution."

The High Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the Petitioner was not validly nominated because his primary academic qualification (the Mature Age Certificate) had expired under the law prior to the date of nomination. The Electoral Commission’s decision to denominate him was upheld.

The Court stated that the appellant erased section 110 defence of the evidence by introducing a new cause of action by asserting a marriage gift. court further observed that permissive occupation (licence) negates the animus possidendi essential for adverse possession. a licence by law does not confer title. court sought that the process to dispose of the suit was to open an administration cause. Ground 1 failed and ground 2 was upheld. the appeal partially succeeded

The Court observed that Local Council officials do not enjoy immunity when they act outside the scope of the Local Councils Courts Act. Distributing land without a court order is a "wrongful act" that attracts personal liability. Moreover, A "cause of action" is determined at the pleading stage by looking at the facts alleged. Whether those facts are actually proved is a matter for the trial, not a ground to strike out a plaint at the start.

The Court reaffirmed the legal nature of a kibanja, quoting Owembabazi Enid v GT Bank Ltd: “A kibanja is a form of land holding… characterised by user rights and ownership of developments on land in perpetuity…” Applying sections 101–103 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that the respondent discharged her burden by proving purchase, payment, possession, and boundary demarcation.

The Court reaffirmed the settled distinction between appeal and review: “The power to review is not an appeal in disguise… A distinction is drawn between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record.” An error apparent is one: “Which stares one in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it.”

The court reiterated that “An appeal can only be determined upon parties arguing the grounds framed for the appeal by pointing out a party’s disagreement with the decision of the lower trial court before the appellate court.” The court further held that failure to file submissions renders an appeal a “non-starter”, justifying dismissal under Order XLIII Rule 31(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

If the injunction were granted, the Respondent would lose access to a property she has managed for years, along with the benefit of her substantial personal involvement and the protective value of the asset securing the joint loan, exposing her to loss that may not be easily reversed.

Letters of administration remain valid for two years, However, any suit instituted during their valid life remains valid throughout, including on appeal. Expiry does not extinguish locus standi for proceedings already commenced.

The Court observed that Reconciliation agreements recorded before an LC1 Court amount to consent judgments, which are final and unappealable under Section 31(1) of the Local Council Courts Act.They may only be set aside on the narrow grounds of fraud, mistake, or misrepresentation, which must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.

Actions for redemption of mortgaged land must be commenced within twelve (12) years from the date the cause of action accrues. The Court further clarified that limitation extinguishes not only the remedy but the right itself in actions for recovery or redemption of land.

It was held in the case of Uganda Farmers Meat Co. Limited Vs Fresh Cuts Uganda Ltd (supra) that the burden of proving that equity and good conscience does not demand a refund devolves upon the Defendant who offers such a defence to the claim of the creditor. That it is settled law that once the Plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favour, the evidential burden shifts to the Defendant to controvert the Plaintiff’s prima facie case; otherwise, judgment must be entered

To set aside a decree under Order 36 Rule 11, the Applicant must demonstrate "any other good cause." Claiming a mere oversight or a notification delay, especially when contradicted by reliable system evidence, does not meet this threshold.

“The 28 days within which the Plaintiff was supposed to take out summons for directions have since elapsed. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not comply with the mandatory provision of Order 11A, Rule 1 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.”

"The catch phrase under Section 290h-4 (a) (1) & (2) of the USADF ACT /ADF ACT U.S Code Title 22, Chapter 71, is that the African Development Foundation, as a body corporate, can sue or be sued in any court of competent jurisdiction. My understanding of this provision is that, the use of the words 'any court of competent jurisdiction' in the enactment provision which establishes the African Development Foundation is a symbolisation of an expression of lack of restriction in f

The Court reiterated that in applications for enlargement of time, the decisive consideration is whether the litigant has taken affirmative steps to correct procedural mistakes and actively pursue their rights. Courts must assess whether parties or their advocates have demonstrated diligence in curing defects. Ultimately, the Court underscored that the judicial system exists to safeguard the rule of law and prevent conflicts,especially in land matters within the Kabale circui

Revision is not a substitute for appeal or review. It targets only jurisdictional excesses or material irregularities causing "failure of justice." Mere evidentiary defects (e.g., affidavit authorization) do not suffice unless they vitiate the court's power to act. Litigants should prioritize appeals for such issues to avoid summary dismissal.

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.

 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.”

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.”

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

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.”