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
5 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
5 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
January 2009
Intertek Testing Services International Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No.55 of 2007) [2009] UGCA 85 (28 January 2009)
Court confirmed that payments to foreign contractors for services under a Uganda government contract are liable to Ugandan withholding tax.
Tax law – Withholding tax – Sourcing of income in Uganda – Privity of contract – Beneficiaries of government contract – Double taxation agreement – Application to non-resident entities – Interpretation of Income Tax Act provisions on source of income and liability to withhold tax.
 28 January 2009
Aida Najjemba v Ester Mpagi (Civil Appeal No. 74/05) [2009] UGCA 1 (21 January 2009)
High Court properly granted a section 167 vesting order where respondent proved payment, possession and vendor acquiescence.
Registration of Titles Act – vesting order – section 167 requirements: payment, possession, acquiescence, inability to effect transfer – sufficiency of affidavit evidence – failure to cross-examine – allegations of forgery/fraud must be particularised – High Court jurisdiction to grant vesting order where Registrar advised court proceedings – administrator’s sale in official capacity and locus to claim.
 21 January 2009
Rwamurungu v DFCU Leasing Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 60 of 2007) [2009] UGCA 69 (15 January 2009)
Interim injunction refused where sale completed and loss of income was not shown to be irreparable; appeal dismissed.
Injunctions — discretionary remedy; prima facie case insufficient alone for interlocutory relief — irreparable harm must be shown; loss of income usually compensable by damages; status quo cannot be preserved where sale has been completed; appellate interference with judicial discretion limited.
 15 January 2009
Janjua v Cairo International Bank (CIVIL APPEAL NO.76 OF 2003) [2009] UGCA 70 (1 January 2009)
A bank guarantee was enforceable: the condition precedent was misconstrued and demands were effectively made, so judgment for the appellant was entered.
• Contract / Guarantees – enforceability of a demand bank guarantee; effect of conditions precedent. • Tax law – relevance of Income Tax Act provisions to requisition of tax clearance certificates for assets disposed before 1 April 1998. • Evidence – sufficiency of oral demands where guarantee silent on form of demand; trial judge’s evaluation of credibility. • Civil procedure – obiter remarks on stamp duty do not constitute ratio; appellate intervention where trial court misapplied conditions and mis-evaluated evidence.
 1 January 2009
Rwabajungu v Germany and Another (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2006) [2009] UGCA 68 (1 January 2009)
Interlocutory costs belonged to the proposed joiner (bank), so the appellant could not recover taxed costs despite later main-suit orders.
Civil procedure – costs – interlocutory application to amend – preliminary objection on limitation – whether taxed costs belong to successful party or proposed joinder – effect of subsequent main-suit order that each party bears own costs – representation and authority of counsel.
 1 January 2009