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
8 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
8 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
January 2001
Tororo Cement Company Limited v Frokina International Limited (Civil Appeal 21 of 2000) [2001] UGCA 28 (12 January 2001)

 

 12 January 2001
Tororo Cement Company Limited v Frokina International Limited (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2000) [2001] UGCA 60 (12 January 2001)
A plaint need only disclose the material facts showing a right, its violation and defendant's liability; missing particulars are remedied under Order 6 r.3.
Civil procedure – Order 7 r.11(a) – Rejection for failure to disclose cause of action; elements required: right, violation, liability. Pleadings – particulars of negligence – not always required in tabular form; sufficiency judged on face of pleadings. Order 6 r.3 – remedy by further and better particulars. Objection must show inherent defect on face of plaint.
 12 January 2001
Bamu Partners & Auctioneers v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 33 of 2000) [2001] UGCA 33 (5 January 2001)

 

 5 January 2001
Bamu Partners & Auctioneers v Attorney General (CIWL APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2000) [2001] UGCA 40 (5 January 2001)
Appellant failed to prove compliance with Order 19 Rule 43 attachment requirements; appeal dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – execution by attachment of shares – Order 19 Rule 43(1)&(2) – mandatory steps: affixation on conspicuous part of court-house and service on corporation’s officer – burden of proof on party claiming execution fees; Appeal procedure – time limits for appeals from Registrar’s orders – Section 80(2) CPA and Order 47 Rule 3 – timeliness objection must be raised at first appellate opportunity.
 5 January 2001
Kengrow Industries v Chandran (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2000) [2001] UGCA 46 (5 January 2001)
An oral employment contract was found to have lasted until expiry; employer’s removal of employee without notice breached the contract, entitling the employee to arrears, benefits, general damages, interest and costs.
Employment law – oral contract – terms (salary and duration) established by pleadings and evidence; wrongful/non‑termination – removal from office without notice constitutes breach; remedies – arrears of salary and contractual benefits, general damages, interest and costs; appellate re-evaluation of evidence and reassessment of damages.
 5 January 2001
Aziz v Makuru (Civil Appeal 39 of 2000) [2001] UGCA 41 (1 January 2001)

 

 1 January 2001
Ghusalal v Manmilal Raja and Others (Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2000) [2001] UGCA 54 (1 January 2001)
Appellant’s insistence on historic sublease rent and pre‑suit conduct justified trial judge’s award of costs to respondents.
Civil procedure – costs follow the event; appellate interference with costs order only where discretion unjudicious or on wrong principles – sublease – ground rent: statutory assessment vs fixed historic rent – litigant’s pre-suit conduct and intransigence as basis for costs.
 1 January 2001
Kidega Lak v Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (CIVIL APPEAL NO.27 OF 2000) [2001] UGCA 55 (1 January 2001)
A successful applicant bailiff is entitled to costs despite prior void orders when he bears no fault.
Civil procedure – costs – discretion under section 27 Civil Procedure Act – successful party ordinarily entitled to costs unless good reason otherwise; Court Bailiffs Rules 1987 r.13(4) – bailiff’s costs payable by judgment creditor where execution is prevented or stayed; illegality of prior court orders not a ground to deny costs to an innocent successful party.
 1 January 2001