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
July 2010
G4S Security Services (U) Ltd v 201 Former Employees of G4S Security Services (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2009) [2010] UGCA 28 (29 July 2010)
High Court erred in ordering execution of a labour officer's award without resolving pending appeal and stay applications.
* Labour law – Execution of labour officer awards – Jurisdiction to order execution where Industrial Court not constituted – Interaction of Employment Act ss.13 and 94 with Trade Disputes rules and stays of execution.
 29 July 2010
Cresensio Mukasa v Yakobo M.N Senkungu (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2006) [2010] UGCA 22 (26 July 2010)
The appellant proved fraud in title transfers, allowing impeachment of the respondents' certificates of title; appeal allowed with costs.
Registration of Titles – fraud vitiating certificates – s.77 and s.176 Registration of Titles Act – when a court may go behind the register – purchaser on notice – burden and proof of fraud; failure to testify as evidential factor.
 26 July 2010
Cresensio Mukasa v Yakobo Senkungu and Others (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2006) [2010] UGCA 60 (26 July 2010)
Court finds fraud in land title registration, supports appellant’s inheritance claim.
Civil Procedure - land dispute - fraud in the transfer and registration of land titles - inheritance rights.
 26 July 2010
Bukenya Joseph v Uganda (Cr. Appeal No. 222 of 2003) [2010] UGCA 32 (23 July 2010)
Whether a 14‑year‑old’s evidence requires a voir dire and whether corroboration and life sentence for defilement were proper.
* Criminal law – Defilement – Corroboration of unsworn evidence of a child – contemporaneous statements and medical evidence as corroboration. * Evidence – Section 40(3) Trial on Indictments Act – voir dire required only where witness is a child of tender years (under 14 at trial). * Sentence – Appeal against sentence – interference only where sentence is illegal or manifestly excessive; life sentence upheld where aggravating factors present.
 23 July 2010
N.Asha & Co.Ltd v Mulowoza & Brother Ltd,Commissioner for Land Registration (Civil Appeal No. 57 of 2009) [2010] UGCA 21 (16 July 2010)
Court allowed amendment to join the Attorney General, holding proposed particulars merely elaborated original fraud allegations and were not time‑barred.
* Civil procedure – Amendment of pleadings – Order 6 rules – Amendment that elaborates existing allegations is permissible and should be allowed where it does not change the subject matter of the suit.* Civil procedure – Joinder/Substitution – Order 1 r10 – Attorney General must be joined where allegations implicate government officials and are necessary for complete adjudication.* Expropriated Properties Act s.15(1) and limitation – ministerial decisions deemed communicated when received; absence of proof of communication may prevent limitation running.* Pleadings – particulars of fraud – amplification of particulars does not necessarily create a new cause of action and will not be disallowed merely for introducing greater detail.* Principle against multiplicity of suits – court discretion should favour joinder to enable effectual determination.
 16 July 2010
Shah & Co. Ltd v Mulowoza & Brothers Ltd and Another (Civil Appeal No. 57 of 2009) [2010] UGCA 63 (16 July 2010)
Leave to amend the plaint and join the Attorney General was wrongly refused where amendments did not introduce a new cause of action.
Civil procedure – amendment of pleadings – joinder of parties – whether proposed amendments introduce a new cause of action – proper exercise of judicial discretion – necessity of joining the Attorney General when government officials are implicated.
 16 July 2010
Celtel Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2006) [2010] UGCA 20 (14 July 2010)

 

 14 July 2010