Court of Appeal of Uganda

The Court of Appeal is the second highest court in the land. It came into being following the promulgation of the 1995 Constitution, and the enactment of the Judicature Statute, 1996. Article 134 of the Constitution established the structure of the Court of Appeal.

While presiding over matters , it is duly constituted when it consists of an odd number of not less than three (3) justices of the Court of Appeal. It is this court that constitutes itself into a Constitutional Court in accordance with the Constitution to hear constitutional cases.

The Constitutional Court consists of fifteen (15) justices and handles the matters, issues or cases concerning the interpretation of the Constitution When presiding over a constitutional matter, there must be a quorum of at least five (5) justices of the court.

Physical address

Twed Towers along Kafu Road, Nakasero,Kampala.

Visit website

https://www.judiciary.go.ug/data/smenu/77//Court%20of%20Appeal.html

13 judgments

Advanced search

All years

All months

Filters

Sort by:

13 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
December 1986
Ateker v Uganda Railways Workers Union & Another (Civil Appeal 8 of 1985) [1986] UGCA 22 (12 December 1986)	12 December 1986
November 1986
American Express International Banking Corporation Vs Atulkumar Sumant Bhai Patel (Civil Application No. 8 of 1986) [1986] UGCA 11 (7 November 1986) Application to admit late affidavit on forum and enforceability denied for lack of due diligence. Civil procedure – Appeal – Admission of additional evidence on appeal; principles: evidence must have been unobtainable with reasonable diligence at trial, be material and apparently credible; applicant failed to show due diligence; forum non conveniens and enforceability of foreign judgments (service, assets, reciprocity) not grounds to admit late affidavit.	7 November 1986
American Express International Banking Corporation Vs Atulkumar Sumant Bhai Patel (Civil Application No. 8 of 1986) [1986] UGCA 21 (7 November 1986) Applicant failed to show due diligence or that proposed affidavit constituted fresh, materially influential evidence; application refused with costs. Civil procedure – appeal – admission of fresh evidence on appeal; requirements: not obtainable with reasonable diligence at trial; probable influence on result; apparent credibility; forum non conveniens and enforcement of foreign judgments – relevance limited at evidence-admission stage; lack of diligence fatal to application.	7 November 1986
September 1986
Birikadde v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 12 of 1982) [1986] UGCA 24 (2 September 1986)	2 September 1986
Dheyongera v Mutyabule (Civil Appeal 3 of 1985) [1986] UGCA 26 (2 September 1986)	2 September 1986
July 1986
Bitwire v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 23 of 1985) [1986] UGCA 25 (11 July 1986)	11 July 1986
Charles Benon Bitwire v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.23 of 1985) [1986] UGCA 11 (11 July 1986) Conviction based on uncorroborated, unreliable accomplice evidence and insufficient circumstantial proof is unsafe; conviction quashed. * Criminal law – conviction based solely on accomplice’s testimony – need for careful scrutiny and corroboration. * Circumstantial evidence – must exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. * Trial judges – must avoid prejudicial, unsubstantiated remarks in judgment. * Motive – absence of motive may favour accused in weak cases.	11 July 1986
June 1986
Libyan Arab Uganda Bank For Foreign Trade & Development & Anor v Adam Vassiliadis (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1985) [1986] UGCA 6 (12 June 1986) Judge’s intervention causing counsel withdrawal led to unfair trial; appeal allowed and retrial ordered. Civil procedure — Record of appeal (Rule 85) — counsel’s affidavit outside the record inadmissible; additional evidence requires Rule 29 application; Fair trial — judicial conduct and interventions — excessive or ill‑timed intervention causing counsel’s withdrawal and ex parte continuation can produce miscarriage of justice; Contracts — parties to sale — first appellant not proved to be party or to have authorised sale; Evidence — hearsay documents (extracts of letters, blank transfer form) lack probative value without maker’s testimony; Legal professional privilege — not established on the record where client/advocate testimony absent; Remedies — retrial de novo before different judge; constitutional referral — court may draw Attorney‑General/Chief Justice attention under Article 85(3).	12 June 1986
Libyan Arab Uganda Bank for Foreign Trade & Development & Another v Vassiliads (Civil Appeal 9 of 1985) [1986] UGCA 23 (12 June 1986)	12 June 1986
Management Training & Advisory Centre v Patrick Kakuku Ikanza (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1985) [1986] UGCA 4 (12 June 1986) Appellant failed to prove ownership or conversion of the welding machine; appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence. Property law – conversion – need to prove ownership/possession on the balance of probabilities; evidentiary weight of correspondence; failure to produce contemporaneous records limits inferences; valuation — exchange rate evidence.	12 June 1986
May 1986
Lebel (East Africa) Ltd v E.F. Lutwama (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1985) [1986] UGCA 2 (30 May 1986) Ex‑parte judgment set aside where counsel’s arrest prevented attendance and a prima facie defence existed. Civil procedure – Ex‑parte judgment – O.9 r.24 and s.101 – "sufficient cause" for non‑appearance (arrest/detention of counsel) – prima facie defence/triable issue – amendment of pleadings at trial – appellate interference with discretion where misdirection or miscarriage of justice.	30 May 1986
National Insurance Corporation v Mugenyi & Co. Advocates (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1984) [1986] UGCA 8 (30 May 1986) Reinstatement justified where trial judge misdirected himself by failing to consider affidavits, authorities and relevant legal points. Civil procedure — Reinstatement of dismissed suit — Order 9 r.20 and inherent jurisdiction/section 101 — tests: sufficient cause, honest intention to attend, nature of action, miscarriage of justice — duty of trial judge to consider affidavits, authorities and plaint — improper determination of res judicata at reinstatement stage.	30 May 1986
Mugenyi & Co. Advocates v National Insurance Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1984) [1986] UGCA 7 (29 May 1986) High Court has inherent power to stay its orders, but the stay here was discharged as it served no useful purpose. Civil procedure – Stay of execution – Order 19 Rule 26 (pending suit must be pending in same court; definition of "decree") – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court (section 101) to stay its orders – Purpose requirement for stays; stay discharged where it serves no useful purpose.	29 May 1986