Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search
background image
profile image

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
7 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
7 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
October 2000
Photo Focus (U) Ltd v Group Four Security Ltd (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 30 OF 2000) [2000] UGCA 48 (27 October 2000)
A clear denial of indebtedness can defeat summary judgment, but intended counter-claims must be pleaded with particularity.
Civil procedure – summary judgment (Order 33 Rules 2 & 3) – defendant must disclose a bona fide triable issue pleaded with sufficient particularity to appear genuine; general or vague denials insufficient. Counter-claim – to justify leave to defend must arise from same subject matter and be pleaded with particulars, including value and that it exceeds plaintiff’s claim
Appeal – High Court erred in entering summary judgment where defendant raised a clear denial of indebtedness
 27 October 2000
Photo Focus (U) Ltd v Group Four Security Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2000) [2000] UGCA 59 (27 October 2000)
A party’s clear denial of a debt in summary suit proceedings entitles it to unconditional leave to defend the suit.
Summary procedure – unconditional leave to defend – sufficiency of general denial – requirement for particulars of defence – when summary judgment inappropriate – summary judgment set aside where denial raises triable issue.
 27 October 2000
Uganda Breweries Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2000) [2000] UGCA 44 (23 October 2000)
Appeal dismissed: trial judge's credibility findings, rejection of appellant's expert, and respondent's counterclaim award were upheld.
Negligence – credibility of eyewitnesses; departure from pleadings – fair notice and denial of justice; failure to call witness – no automatic adverse inference; expert evidence – relevance and impartiality; proof of special damages – role of qualified witness and effect of lack of cross‑examination on exchange rate.
 23 October 2000
Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Appeal 23 of 2000) [2000] UGCA 40 (20 October 2000)
Appellant guarantor liable on an on‑demand guarantee; delays, telexes and alleged frustration did not discharge liability.
Contract law – choice of law and formalities; corporate seal not required where English law governs and statute applies Guarantees – extent of guarantor’s liability; clause creating personal, on-demand guarantee upheld Contract variation – extension of drawdown/repayment dates not substantial or prejudicial where bona fide and conditioned by precedent events Waiver/demand – failure to contemporaneously demand each instalment did not waive guarantor’s liability Frustration – doctrine excluded by express contractual clauses and not available for self-induced events
 20 October 2000
Bank of Uganda v Bano Arabe Espanol (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2000) [2000] UGCA 3 (20 October 2000)
The appellant's defences (no seal, alterations, delay, frustration) failed; guarantor held personally liable and appeal dismissed.
Contract enforceability – corporate seal and choice of English law; guaranty scope – Clause 18 personal liability; alterations/extensions – unsubstantial; demand requirements; frustration excluded by contract; power of attorney; Attorney-General opinion as condition precedent
 20 October 2000
Isingoma and Another v Assimwe and Others (CIVIL APPEAL NO.4 OF 2000) [2000] UGCA 43 (17 October 2000)
Appellants’ land challenge partly dismissed: four respondents proved applicant status; one respondent must obtain letters of administration.
Land law – title dispute – application and lease offer – whether oral evidence and a lease offer listing an applicant and "others" can establish applicant status despite omissions on printed application forms
Succession/estate – necessity of Letters of Administration/Probate where a claimant asserts rights derived from a deceased person. Appellate review – scope for re-evaluating evidence on appeal where record supports the finding
 17 October 2000
City Council of Kampala v Musisi Sekyaya (Civil Application 3 of 2000) [2000] UGCA 33 (4 October 2000)
Stay of execution refused where a monetary judgment can be adequately remedied by payment and irreparable loss was not shown.
Court of Appeal – stay of execution pending appeal (Rules 5(2)(b), 42(1)) – test for stay: irreparable/substantial loss – monetary judgment normally reparable by payment – inability to show payment would cripple applicant defeats stay application.
 4 October 2000