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
3 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
3 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
March 2008
Gordon Sentiba and 2 Others vs Inspector of Government (Civil Appeal No 14 of 2007) [2008] UGCA 4 (27 March 2008)
The respondent may move court to review consent judgments alleging corruption; its locus and affidavit formalities upheld.
Constitutional and statutory powers of the
Inspectorate of Government – limits under s.19(1)(a) and (c) – interpretation: does not bar moving court to review its own judgments where corruption/fraud alleged. Locus standi – capacity of Inspectorate to sue or be sued and to seek review as an aggrieved party; distinction from Attorney General’s role. Civil procedure – Order 46/Order 9/Rule 12 – setting aside consent judgments; aggrieved non-parties may seek review
Affidavits – jurat formalities and drafting by public officers – technical defects not fatal; Advocates Act restriction inapplicable to public officers
 27 March 2008
Nagji Textile Ltd v Popat and Others (Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2003) [2008] UGCA 33 (14 March 2008)
A company's power of attorney was not validly revoked and purchasers acquired good title; allegations of fraud were unproven.
Property law – Revocation of power of attorney – Requirements for valid revocation under company articles – Validity of property transfer – Bona fide purchaser for value – Allegations of fraud and illegality – Onus of proof in challenging registered title.
 14 March 2008
Wanyama v City Council of Kampala and Another (Civil Appeal No. 06 of 2004) [2008] UGCA 25 (1 March 2008)
Vague or internal correspondence does not constitute a communicated acknowledgement sufficient to revive a time‑barred claim.
Limitation of actions – statutory time limits – effect of negotiation or settlement discussions on limitation periods. Limitation of actions – acknowledgement of debt – must be clear, unequivocal and communicated to the creditor to revive limitation under s.22(4)
Limitation Acts – section 32 – does not convert incidental matters (like acknowledgement) into exceptions where specific limitation enactments govern. Administrative/internal advice (e.g., City Advocate memo) – advisory, not binding, and insufficient as communicated acknowledgement
 1 March 2008