|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2006 |
|
|
Bribery under LGA s147 must be proved to the court’s satisfaction; appeal dismissed for failure to prove bribery.
Election law — Election petitions — Bribery under Local Government Act s147 — elements and burden of proof — allegations of non-compliance, admissibility of affidavits and amendment of pleadings — insufficient proof insufficient to nullify election.
|
8 December 2006 |
| November 2006 |
|
|
|
3 November 2006 |
| October 2006 |
|
|
Where pay and allowances are consolidated, pension/gratuity must be calculated on the consolidated figure.
* Labour law – employment termination – pension/gratuity calculation – where salary and allowances are consolidated, computation is based on consolidated figure; employer bound by agreed consolidation.
|
27 October 2006 |
| September 2006 |
|
|
Courts have discretion under Article 23(6) to grant or refuse bail, but refusal must be substantiated and not punitive.
Constitutional law — Bail — Article 23(6): courts have discretion to grant or refuse bail; refusal must not be punitive and must be based on substantiated grounds; High Court and subordinate courts may set reasonable bail conditions.
|
25 September 2006 |
|
Court held buyer failed to prove delivered goods differed from sample; seller awarded unpaid balance with interest.
* Sale by sample – requirement that delivered goods correspond with pre-contract sample and burden of proof. * Civil procedure – court must base judgment on issues properly framed; where issues are added parties must be notified and allowed to address them. * Evidence – necessity of chain of custody for samples and limitations of expert reports where identity of tested samples is not established. * Right to reject goods – buyer’s entitlement depends on proof goods differ from sample. * Counterclaim – seller’s right to unpaid balance when buyer fails to prove valid rejection.
|
12 September 2006 |
|
Appellate court found police impounded applicant's goods, held State vicariously liable and allowed appeal with costs.
Administrative law/tort — Unlawful arrest, detention and detinue — Evidence and evaluation of witnesses — Vicarious liability of the State for police acts — Statutory notice to sue Attorney General — procedural mistakes of counsel not to defeat substantive claims.
|
8 September 2006 |
|
Parties are bound by their pleadings; failure to timely raise absence of statutory notice precludes reliance on it.
Civil procedure – Pleadings – parties are bound by their pleadings and cannot raise new issues late in the proceedings; Statutory (monitory) notice – service and effect – objection must be pleaded or raised as a preliminary point before or during trial; substitution of parties – administrators joined under Court of Appeal Rules (rule 96).
|
8 September 2006 |
|
An appeal lies to the Court of Appeal from High Court judicial review orders that conclusively determine parties' rights.
* Judicial review – prerogative orders (mandamus, certiorari, prohibition) – appealability under section 36 Judicature Act.
* Appellate jurisdiction – creature of statute – section 10 Judicature Act and section 66 Civil Procedure Act confer appeals from High Court decisions.
* "Decree" – orders that finally determine rights are appealable as decrees under section 2 and section 66.
* Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules 2003 – confirm automatic right of appeal, narrow exclusions.
|
7 September 2006 |
|
High Court prerogative orders are appealable as of right; judicial review is supervisory, not an appeal on the merits.
* Administrative Law – Judicial review – prerogative orders (certiorari, mandamus, prohibition) – appealability to Court of Appeal under Sections 10 (Judicature Act) and 66 (Civil Procedure Act).
* Civil procedure – Appeals – originating summons and final determination – leave to appeal (Order 40 rule 1) not required where rights finally settled.
* Judicial review – supervisory jurisdiction – not a merits appeal; certiorari can quash and remit under Rule 10(4).
* Interpretation – statutory prescription of High Court decisions renders them appealable unless expressly excluded.
|
4 September 2006 |
|
Whether an unnotified diversion breached the transport contract and which special damages were proved and recoverable.
* Transport law – contract of carriage – diversion without written notification constitutes breach where consignee notified destination differs from actual delivery point. * Evidence – consignment documentation and uncontroverted witness testimony may determine contractual destination. * Damages – general damages discretionary; special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. * Proof – estimates unsupported by proof of expenditure are disallowed; courts may take judicial notice of funeral/towing/guarding expenses where deaths occurred.
|
1 September 2006 |
| August 2006 |
|
|
A divested public corporation incorporated under the Companies Act is the legal owner despite majority state shareholding; respondent was proper defendant.
Public enterprises divestiture; statutory transfer and corporate succession under Public Enterprises Reform and Divestiture Statute 1993 and Companies Act; majority state shareholder does not equate to direct government ownership; management agreements do not necessarily displace legal ownership; proper defendant and employer in wrongful dismissal claims.
|
30 August 2006 |
|
Exemplary damages and restitution upheld where the appellant caused the respondent's arrest to coerce payment, resulting in unjust enrichment.
Civil procedure; exemplary and aggravated damages—award warranted where defendant's conduct is high‑handed, vindictive or malicious; Restitution/money had and received—prevents unjust enrichment; compound interest—appropriate in restitutionary awards; coercive arrest as basis for damages.
|
30 August 2006 |
|
Airline liability for lost checked baggage limited by ticket terms under the Warsaw Convention; no wilful misconduct proved.
Carriage by air – liability for lost baggage – applicability of Warsaw Convention terms printed on ticket – passenger ticket and baggage check as one contract document – limitation of liability (Article 22(2)) – Illiterates Protection Act inapplicable to printed ticket – burden to prove wilful misconduct (Article 25) – notice by contractual terms on ticket.
|
29 August 2006 |
|
A resignation requirement for certain government employees before nominations breached free and fair elections and equality, but not the right to participate.
Constitutional law – interpretation and harmonisation of constitutional provisions; Article 80(4) (resignation requirement) – compatibility with Article 1(4) (free and fair elections) and Article 21(1) (equality/non‑discrimination); Article 38(1) (participation) – not breached; interpretation of "person employed in any government department or agency"; effect of late enactment on electoral fairness.
|
25 August 2006 |
|
An ex parte judgment cannot award unliquidated monetary claims without the plaintiff formally proving them.
Civil procedure – Order 15 rule 4 – ex parte/default judgments – requirement to formally prove claim where defendant absent after appearance entered; Damages – liquidated vs unliquidated sums – liquidated sums recoverable without proof; unliquidated sums require evidence.
|
24 August 2006 |
|
Compound interest may be awarded in equity where a fiduciary (including the State) wrongfully withholds and uses compensation funds.
* Expropriation law – compensation – entitlement to interest on delayed payment of compensation.
* Equity – award of compound interest – permitted where money is retained or misapplied by a fiduciary or wrongdoer.
* Civil appeals – interference with discretionary awards – appellate court will not disturb discretion absent misdirection or injustice.
|
4 August 2006 |
| June 2006 |
|
|
Proceedings must be stayed until a deceased party’s legal representative is substituted under Court of Appeal Rule 96.
* Civil procedure – substitution of deceased party – Court of Appeal Rule 96 requires substitution of a deceased party by a legal representative before proceedings continue. * Representation – counsel cannot rely on instructions of deceased client; must obtain instructions from personal/legal representative. * Executors – executor may be introduced as representative without a grant of probate but must be properly introduced to court. * Stay of proceedings – hearing stayed pending substitution.
|
21 June 2006 |
|
A stay pending appeal is granted only in exceptional circumstances; interlocutory lifting of the corporate veil does not pre-judge fraud.
* Civil procedure – stay of proceedings pending appeal – discretionary relief granted only in exceptional circumstances. * Company law – lifting the corporate veil – interlocutory orders do not decide fraud; fraud must be proved at trial. * Appellate review – interference with trial judge’s discretion only where wrongly exercised. * Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings and consideration of High Court backlog when granting stays.
|
16 June 2006 |
| May 2006 |
|
|
A property owner was awarded full repair costs after the court found the appellant responsible for vandalizing the premises before handover.
Tort – Property Damage – Vandalization – Assessment of damages – Proof of responsibility for property destruction – Measure and proof of special damages – Appellate review of factual findings and damages assessment.
|
23 May 2006 |
|
Appellate court affirmed murder conviction: eyewitness, medical and physical evidence corroborated; defences rejected.
Criminal law – Murder – Eyewitness evidence and corroboration; minor inconsistencies in eyewitness account not necessarily fatal; post-mortem evidence corroborating cause of death; recovery of weapon – axe – as supporting evidence; defences of self-defence and provocation unavailable where attacker fetches deadly weapon and uses excessive force.
|
22 May 2006 |
|
Improperly admitted confession and unreliable, uncorroborated victim evidence led to quashing of defilement conviction.
* Criminal procedure – admissibility of extrajudicial confessions – trial within a trial required where confession challenged. * Evidence – confessions must be recorded in language of accused; departures require examination of surrounding circumstances (s.24 Evidence Act). * Evidence – victim testimony must be reliable and corroborated; hearsay and inconsistent statements undermine conviction. * Criminal appeal – conviction and sentence liable to be quashed where key evidence improperly admitted and witness testimony unreliable.
|
9 May 2006 |
|
Appellate court declined to disturb a five-year defilement sentence, finding remand was properly considered.
Criminal law – Defilement – Sentencing discretion – Appellate review limited to failures to exercise discretion, omissions or errors in principle; consideration of remand period under article 23(8) constitution – Remand need not be mathematically deducted if court has otherwise taken it into account.
|
9 May 2006 |
| April 2006 |
|
|
Appeal dismissed: eyewitness identification upheld and convictions confirmed despite darkness and alibi claims.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – reliability in low light and moving confrontation; alibi – prosecution’s duty to disprove; appellate review of trial judge’s credibility findings; evaluation of alleged contradictions and motives.
|
28 April 2006 |
|
Appellate court reduced a manifestly excessive manslaughter sentence given accidental shooting and significant mitigating factors.
Criminal law – Sentence – appellate interference where sentence is manifestly excessive; Manslaughter – accidental shooting during scuffle; Mitigating factors – remand time, guilty plea, first offender; Trial judge’s characterisation – appropriateness of sentencing remarks.
|
18 April 2006 |
|
Delay caused by counsel’s fundamental negligence can justify extension of time to appeal; prospects of success not required.
Civil Procedure – extension of time to appeal – court’s discretion under s.79 CPA & Order 47 r.6; counsel’s negligence – when not visited on client; prospects of success not prerequisite; locus in quo visit discretionary.
|
5 April 2006 |
|
Registered title in partners’ names does not preclude land being partnership property; receiver ordered to wind up and divide assets.
Partnership law – determination of partnership property in absence of written agreement – factors: source and purpose of acquisition and subsequent use; Interaction with Registration of Titles Act – registered title in partners' names does not preclude partnership ownership; Winding up – appointment of receiver where partnership effectively needs general winding up; Evidentiary sufficiency for movable assets.
|
4 April 2006 |
| March 2006 |
|
|
Failure to request and serve the High Court record as required by Rule 82(3) renders the appeal time-barred and liable to be struck out.
Civil procedure – Appeals – Institution of appeals – Rule 82(1)–(3) – Requirement for written application for record of proceedings, service on respondent and retention of proof – Mandatory compliance – Failure to comply renders appeal time-barred; late, unexplained procedural delay and failure to produce proof of service fatal to resisting strike-out.
|
31 March 2006 |
|
An appellate court may overturn a trial judge's refusal to award costs where the successful party was unfairly denied costs and the respondent lacked clean hands.
Costs — judicial discretion — appellate interference where trial judge misdirects or is clearly wrong; equitable relief — clean hands doctrine; caveat extension — misconceived, incompetent, abuse of process.
|
27 March 2006 |
|
A lessee under a public lease retains the right to seek relief against forfeiture, despite re-entry for non-payment, under the saved provisions of the Public Lands Act.
Land law – Leasehold – Land Act, 1998 – Whether section 32 of Public Lands Act, 1969, as saved, provides a right to relief against forfeiture for lessees – Court's equitable discretion to grant relief – Costs – Proper exercise of discretion by trial court.
|
22 March 2006 |
|
The applicant is bound by counsel's deliberate strategy; counsel's wrong choice does not justify extension of time.
Civil procedure – extension of time to appeal – "sufficient cause" requirement; counsel's mistake or deliberate strategy; client bound by advocate's conduct; execution and approbation/reprobation; miscarriage of justice.
|
16 March 2006 |
|
Minor affidavit errors and registrar’s delay excused; extension granted to effect service, assistant registrar’s dismissal set aside.
Civil procedure – extension of time to effect service of a notice of appeal; admissibility of registrar’s confirmation document under Rule 30; distinction between minor inconsistencies/typographical errors and defective affidavits; delay attributable to court officer excusing non‑service; substantive justice over technicalities.
|
14 March 2006 |
| February 2006 |
|
|
Court reduced excessive instruction fee to 10% of subject matter and recalculated VAT, awarding costs to the applicant.
Costs taxation – instruction fee – whether allowance of shs.13,000,000 manifestly excessive – courts defer to taxing officer unless award is unreasonable; VAT – entitlement and proper calculation; principles for reviewing taxation awards.
|
21 February 2006 |
|
Voluntary intoxication is not a mitigating factor in defilement sentencing; a 10-year term was upheld.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Defilement of a child – Voluntary intoxication not a mitigating factor – Guilty plea and remorse as mitigating factors – Victim’s age as significant aggravating factor – Appellate review of sentencing discretion.
|
7 February 2006 |
|
Post‑dated cheque given as security in pre‑financing is not necessarily criminal; malicious prosecution and several damage awards upheld, counterclaim partially allowed.
Pre‑financing agreements – post‑dated/cheque as security – criminality under section 385(1)(b) – malicious prosecution – mortgage/foreclosure procedure and possession by consent – admissibility of oral evidence for special damages – assessment of appellate review of trial judge’s evaluation of evidence.
|
7 February 2006 |
|
Court affirms five-year defilement sentence, holding remand credit is not an automatic mathematical deduction.
* Criminal law – Sentencing – Remand credit – "Taking into account" remand time is not a purely mathematical deduction but requires judicial discretion and an unambiguous sentencing order.
* Criminal law – Sentencing – Defilement – Five-year term not excessive where circumstances do not justify interference.
* Constitutional provision considered: Article 23(8).
* Authorities: Kamya Johnson Wavamunno v Uganda; Kizito Senkule v Uganda.
|
7 February 2006 |
|
Appellate court upheld eight‑year sentence for defilement of a 13‑year‑old, finding sentencing not excessive.
Criminal law – Defilement (s.129(1) Penal Code Act) – Sentencing – Mitigating factors: guilty plea, remorse, time on remand – Aggravating factors: age of victim, seriousness of offence – Appellate restraint on interfering with sentencing discretion.
|
5 February 2006 |
|
Appeal against a 10‑year defilement sentence dismissed; sentence not illegal or manifestly harsh.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Defilement of a child – appellate interference with sentence – guilty plea and remorse as mitigating factors – seriousness of offence (child’s age, physical injury, venereal infection, betrayal of trust) as aggravating factors – appellate restraint unless sentence illegal or manifestly harsh.
|
5 February 2006 |
|
Court upheld eight-year sentence for defilement of a six-year-old, finding it not manifestly excessive.
Criminal law – Sentencing discretion – Appeal court interference only where sentence illegal or manifestly excessive; Defilement of a child – seriousness of offence and victim’s age as aggravating factors; Mitigation – guilty plea and time on remand may be considered.
|
5 February 2006 |
|
Six-year sentence for defilement upheld; consent irrelevant and remand/rehabilitation insufficient to warrant release.
Criminal law – Defilement – strict liability offence; victim’s consent irrelevant – Sentencing – consideration of mitigating factors (first offender, guilty plea, remand time, remorse, rehabilitation) – Judicial discretion in sentencing – appellate interference only where sentencing is manifestly excessive or misdirected.
|
2 February 2006 |
|
The Court upheld a 12-year sentence for defilement of a five-year-old, finding it not excessive despite mitigating factors.
* Criminal law – Sentencing – Defilement of a minor – Appropriate weight to be given to mitigating factors (age, health, guilty plea, first offender status, remand credit under Article 23) versus seriousness of offence and statutory maximum penalty.
|
2 February 2006 |
| January 2006 |
|
|
The applicant’s challenge to a 10-year sentence for defiling a five-year-old was dismissed.
* Criminal law – Defilement – Sentence – Whether appellate interference is warranted where sentence is claimed to be harsh or excessive – appellate interference only where wrong principle or manifestly harsh/excessive. * Sentencing factors – victim’s age, familial relationship, period on remand, and comparable precedent considered.
|
30 January 2006 |
|
Notice of Appeal struck out where respondent failed to institute appeal within the 60-day period under Court of Appeal Rules.
Civil procedure — Court of Appeal Rules 1996 (Rules 81–83) — striking out notice of appeal — requirement to institute appeal within 60 days — failure to take essential step — deemed withdrawal under Rule 83.
|
24 January 2006 |
|
Release of attached property upheld where attachment was not properly executed despite debtor's possession.
Civil procedure — Attachment and execution — Objector proceedings under Order 79 R.55–57 CPR — Possession at time of attachment determinative; procedural requirements to effect attachment (notice of sale; return/certification of warrant) must be complied with; failure to complete execution renders attachment invalid. Public/international bodies — Capacity to sue or be sued — Statute and hosting agreement confer corporate capacity.
|
13 January 2006 |
|
The applicant’s challenge to an eight‑year defilement sentence was dismissed as not manifestly excessive.
Criminal law – Defilement – Sentencing – Whether sentence is harsh or excessive – Remand period as a mitigating consideration – Appellate interference only where sentence is illegal or manifestly excessive.
|
12 January 2006 |
|
Late amended defence and corroborated acknowledgement established company liability for unpaid supplies, appeal dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – proof on balance of probabilities; Contract/sale of goods – unpaid supplies; Documentary acknowledgement (Exhibit P1) – admissibility and weight; Agency/employment – when acts bind a company; Amendment of pleadings – adverse inference from inconsistent pleadings; Credibility findings – deference to trial judge's observations.
|
10 January 2006 |
|
Transfers effected during pending litigation without authority were fraudulent, void, and the appellants' registered interests restored.
Land law – Registered title and transfers – Power of attorney – Revocation by notice – Effect of non-registration – Fraudulent transfers during pendency of litigation – Partnership cannot own registrable land; importance of title and proper authority for transfers.
|
1 January 2006 |
|
Whether a post‑dated cheque given as security justified criminal prosecution and damages for malicious prosecution.
Civil procedure; security cheques and post‑dated cheques — when a cheque given as security in a commercial pre‑financing arrangement does not constitute criminal conduct under s.385(1)(b) — malicious prosecution for wrongful referral to police — enforcement of securities, foreclosure and possession — duress and validity of acknowledgements of indebtedness — assessment of damages (special and general).
|
1 January 2006 |
|
Appeal allowed: claimant failed to prove containers empty at discharge or loss while carrier remained in control, so damages set aside.
• Carriage of goods by sea – bill of lading governs contract of carriage; delivery to clearing agent and customs seals relevant to carrier's liability. • Burden of proof – claimant must prove loss occurred while carrier in control; inferences cannot supplant primary proved facts. • Evaluation of documentary evidence – ambiguous or inconsistent weight/seal entries cannot establish emptiness at discharge. • Liability – carrier not liable where loss may have occurred after handover to other agents or carriers.
|
1 January 2006 |
|
Longstanding occupation and equitable interest made the appellant a lawful/bona fide occupant; eviction and damages were wrongly awarded.
Land law — lawful occupant; bona fide occupant — definitions and protection under Land Act s.29 — long continuous occupation (since 1955) and equitable interest — licence distinguished from lawful/bona fide occupation — eviction, notice and compensation — change of registered ownership does not automatically create trespass.
|
1 January 2006 |
|
Appellate court held trial judge misapplied discretion on costs and ordered respondent to pay appellants’ costs.
Civil procedure — Costs — Section 27 Civil Procedure Act — costs follow the event unless court for good reason otherwise orders; discretion must be exercised judicially. Appellate review — interference with costs discretion where trial judge misdirected or clearly wrong. Caveat proceedings — striking out incompetent/misconceived application; effect on costs.
|
1 January 2006 |
