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
9 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
9 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
September 2013
Attorney General v Baliraine (Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2003) [2013] UGCA 9 (27 September 2013)
General, non‑specific appeal grounds struck out; wrongful termination and sexual harassment upheld, Shs.10,000,000 damages affirmed.
• Employment law – wrongful termination – employer failed to prove contractual grounds for termination.• Employment law – sexual harassment – uncontradicted testimony upheld by trial court.• Civil procedure – appeals – grounds of appeal must comply with Rule 86(1) and be specific.• Remedies – general damages for mental suffering, embarrassment and inconvenience upheld as discretionary award.
 27 September 2013
Kampala City Council V Crested Crane Tours & Travel Ltd (Civil Appeal 16 of 2004) [2013] UGCA 12 (27 September 2013)
27 September 2013
City Council of Kampala v Crested Crane Tours and Travel Limited (Civil Appeal 16 of 2004) [2013] UGCA 2049 (25 September 2013)
Service on the City Advocate constituted effective service on the Town Clerk; appeal dismissed for failure to rebut.
Local Government Act (Schedule 3, Rule 26) – service of statutory notice – service on City Advocate effective as service on Town Clerk; Evidential burden – stamped and signed annexure to plaint prima facie proof of service; Failure to plead or adduce evidence or cross-examine on service disentitles defendant to later challenge service.
 25 September 2013
Attorney General v Alima Santos and 676 Others (Civil Reference No. 117 of 2013) [2013] UGCA 2055 (13 September 2013)
Court extends time for Attorney General to appeal High Court decision on former employees' pension increments.
Civil procedure – extension of time – sufficient reason for delay – pension entitlements – consent judgment – procedural fairness.
 13 September 2013
Attorney General v Florence Bali Raine (Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2003) [2013] UGCA 2050 (6 September 2013)
Appellate court upheld unlawful dismissal and sexual harassment findings, struck vague grounds, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Employment law – wrongful termination – contract renewal and unlawful dismissal – failure of employer to provide reasons; Sexual harassment – acceptance of unchallenged, detailed testimony; Civil procedure – appellate practice – Rule 86(1) – striking vague grounds of appeal; Remedies – general damages for mental torture, embarrassment and inconvenience.
 6 September 2013
Attorney General v Florence Bali Raine (Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2003) [2013] UGCA 2051 (6 September 2013)
Appellate court affirms unlawful termination and sexual harassment findings, upholding general damages and striking vague grounds of appeal.
Employment law – wrongful termination – contract renewal and termination; sexual harassment – acceptance of unchallenged testimony; appellate procedure – general grounds of appeal struck out under Rule 86(1); assessment and quantum of general damages for emotional harm.
 6 September 2013
Noble Builders (Uganda) Ltd v Balwinder Kaur Sandhu (Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2009) [2013] UGCA 19 (4 September 2013)
An application to rectify a company register under section 118 is not time‑barred; prior appellate findings of share transfer were binding.
* Company law – Rectification of register of members – application under section 118 – not time‑barred by Limitation Act. * Precedent/estoppel by record – appellate and Supreme Court findings on share transfer conclusively binding. * Company articles – nationality restriction v. spouse transfer provision – Article 25 permits transfer to spouse irrespective of nationality. * Validity of transfer – Company Form No.8 accepted as effective evidence of transfer where higher courts so held. * Corporate governance – power to order meetings under section 135 to resolve internal disputes; rights of absent claimants to be heard at company meetings. * Costs – discretionary award upheld where principal reliefs were granted to applicant.
 4 September 2013
Bagonza & 9 Ors v Kimala & 4 Ors (Civil Reference No. 63 of 2013) [2013] UGCA 16 (2 September 2013)
No statutory right exists to refer a Registrar’s refusal of a stay of execution to a single Justice; application dismissed.
Court of Appeal registrars’ powers under Practice Direction No.1 of 2004; jurisdiction to refer Registrar’s decision to a single Justice; section 12 Judicature Act—single-judge interlocutory powers; Rule 53(2)(b) exclusion of stays from single-judge hearing; appeal/reference as creature of statute; proper forum for stay of execution is a bench of three Justices.
 2 September 2013
Mubiru & 3 Ors v Nakato & Anor (Civil Reference No. 147 of 2012) [2013] UGCA 15 (1 September 2013)
Judge reduced manifestly excessive instruction fee for a brief interlocutory application, substituting shs.1,000,000/=.
Costs and taxation – instruction fees – whether allowance manifestly excessive; judicial review of taxing officer’s discretion under Rule 110(3); interlocutory vs final character of application relevant to quantum of fees; application of Bank of Uganda v. Banco Arabe Espanol and Premchand Raichand principles.
 1 September 2013