|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2010 |
|
|
Order 22 inquiry is provisional; the matrimonial plot was mortgaged to a third party, so the release-from-attachment motion was dismissed.
* Civil procedure – Order 22 rules 55–57 – Investigation into attachments limited to possession at date of attachment and provisional inquiries into title. * Matrimonial property – protection against attachment where objector demonstrates possession/interest; however a prior registered mortgage binds. * Land law – distinction between adjacent plots enclosed within one boundary; survey/valuation errors do not override registered encumbrances. * Remedies – redundant attachment challenge dismissed where property is not subject to attachment but is mortgaged to third party.
|
16 December 2010 |
|
Affidavit in reply filed five months late was incompetent and struck out; leave is required to file replies outside prescribed timelines.
Civil procedure – interlocutory applications – Order 12 Rule 3(2) CPR – timelines for service and replies – affidavit in reply filed out of time – leave required to file late – estoppel and constitutionality not a cure for procedural non‑compliance.
|
9 December 2010 |
| October 2010 |
|
|
A binding private tax ruling was unlawfully revoked without hearing, so revocation was declared null and an injunction granted.
* Tax law – private rulings under s.161 Income Tax Act – binding effect where full and true disclosure made; revocation without hearing unlawful. * Administrative law – judicial review – procedural fairness/natural justice and Article 42 right to be heard. * Doctrine of functus officio – public officer who issues binding ruling cannot unilaterally revisit it; proper recourse is appeal/tribunal. * Declaratory relief in judicial review – discretionary; court declined to determine substantive tax merits at interlocutory stage.
|
28 October 2010 |
|
Court granted leave to amend pleadings where amendments were necessary to resolve real issues and caused no injustice, allowing seven days to file.
Civil Procedure – Amendment of pleadings – Order 6 rr.19 & 31 CPR – Amendment allowed where necessary to determine real issues and does not cause injustice; pleadings should not contain evidential assertions; special damages must be strictly proved.
|
19 October 2010 |
|
Court allowed amendment to plaint to reflect auditor’s findings, subject to removal of evidential averments and time‑bar specifics.
Civil procedure – Amendment of pleadings – Order 6 rule 19 – Leave to amend to reflect expert auditor’s report – Special damages versus new cause of action – Time‑bar objections must be specific – Pleading must not set out evidence (Order 6 rule 18).
|
19 October 2010 |
|
Court permitted amendment of plaint under Order 6 CPR as necessary to decide real issues, subject to filing within seven days.
Civil procedure – Amendment of plaint – Order 6 r19 and r31 CPR – Test: necessary to determine real questions in controversy and must not cause injustice – Amendments largely on special damages; evidential averments to be cleaned up – Delay explained by counsel’s medical condition – Leave to amend granted.
|
19 October 2010 |
| August 2010 |
|
|
Plaintiffs proved consultancy services and recovered proved unpaid fees, nominal damages, interest and scaled costs.
Contract – consultancy services – whether services rendered and provable by invoices and contemporaneous communications; evidential weight of emails and partial payments; rejection of invoices attributed to third-party auditors absent corroborating witnesses; damages, interest and costs awarded for proven unpaid fees.
|
25 August 2010 |
|
Court finds a sale, not a loan; under-declared stamp duty noted but plaintiff’s claims dismissed with costs.
* Contract characterization – loan versus sale – burden and nature of documentary proof required. * Public policy and illegality – under-declaration of property value on transfer forms/stamp duty implications. * Evidence – hostile witnesses and inadmissibility/insufficiency of alleged repayment documents. * Remedies – requirement for strict proof of special damages and rent.
|
23 August 2010 |
|
Plaintiff entitled to refund of auction payment and modest general damages, but not private loan interest absent foreseeability or notice.
* Sale by auction – completion by fall of the hammer – auctioneer’s failure to deliver entitles buyer to restitution of purchase price. * Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; loan interest not recoverable where defendant lacked notice – foreseeability (Hadley v Baxendale). * General damages for breach of contract compensate for loss of expectation and inconvenience. * Duty to mitigate; settlement offers and claimant’s conduct can affect remedy. * Interest: commercial transactions may attract commercial bank rates; general damages attract court rate.
|
18 August 2010 |
| July 2010 |
|
|
Informer not entitled to 10% reward on taxpayer’s voluntary disclosures beyond the audited period.
* Tax law – Informers’ reward – Section 7 Finance Act 1999 – 10% reward payable only on tax recovered as a result of informer’s information and related enforcement action; voluntary taxpayer disclosures for periods outside the information/audit do not attract the informer’s reward.
|
18 July 2010 |
|
Whether the respondent lawfully collected increased excise duty during the lapse and whether the applicants are entitled to refunds.
* Tax law – taxation only by Act of Parliament; provisional collection orders and their expiry. * Statutory interpretation – ambiguity in commencement provisions; retrospective operation of tax statutes. * Validity of Acts – errors going to substance (non-existent schedule) cannot be corrected by printer's corrigenda; only Parliament may amend laws. * Refunds – unlawful or excess tax collections are refundable under excise and provisional collection statutes.
|
18 July 2010 |
|
A prior consent settlement and statutory limitation barred the applicant’s subsequent breach of contract claim; suit dismissed with costs.
* Civil procedure – res judicata – prior consent settlement as full and final settlement precluding relitigation; Explanation 4, s.7 Civil Procedure Act. * Limitation – actions against Government founded on contract – s.3(2) CPLA; cause of action accrual and three‑year limitation. * Contract law – effect of IGG report and administrative communications on accrual of cause of action.
|
11 July 2010 |
|
Plaintiff awarded UGX 82,832,484 for unpaid beer; separate VAT refund denied; interest and costs awarded.
Commercial Law – Distributor agreement – Recovery of unpaid supplies – Account statements, invoices, letter of acknowledgment and empties reconciliation as proof of debt; VAT included in account balance so separate VAT refund refused; interest awarded at 21% p.a. and costs granted.
|
11 July 2010 |
| April 2010 |
|
|
Plaintiff proved unpaid service invoices; court awarded proven debt, modest general damages, interest at court rate and costs.
Contract – breach – recovery of unpaid invoices under service contract; proof of special damages by invoices and admission; general damages compensatory where specific loss not proved; discretion to award interest at court rate; failure to file defence and verification undermines challenge to quantum.
|
27 April 2010 |
|
Whether an employer is vicariously liable for theft by its security guards and whether an unsigned limitation clause is effective.
* Contract law – authority to sign – apparent/ostensible authority binds company under service order contracts. * Evidence – credibility and balance of probabilities in theft claims; expert measurement evidence. * Vicarious liability – employer liable for employees’ theft conducted in course of employment. * Exclusion/limitation clauses – unsigned/backside contractual small print ineffective without adequate notice/signature. * Remedies – damages, interest and costs; recognition of admitted counterclaim debt.
|
26 April 2010 |
|
Applicant failed to identify a substantial legal point, so leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Leave to appeal – requirement to show a substantial question of law; new legal principle – must be identified; mere allegation of importance or likelihood of success insufficient; supporting affidavit must specify points of law; costs awarded on dismissal.
|
25 April 2010 |
|
Contract existed but claimant failed to prove breach, vehicle identity or entitlement; suit dismissed with costs.
Contract law – existence of contract established by agreement and parties’ conduct; Evidence – burden of proof on plaintiff, standard on balance of probabilities; Proof of breach – inconsistencies in documentary evidence, vehicle identity and ownership defeat claim; Company identity – minor name discrepancy corrected where outsider dealt in good faith; Remedies – claimant failed to prove entitlement; Suit dismissed with costs.
|
22 April 2010 |
|
A signed service agreement and account statements established the defendant’s indebtedness; judgment, interest and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
Contract – telecommunications services – existence of written agreement; Evidence – burden of proof and admissions via correspondence; Documentary proof – account statement establishing indebtedness; Civil procedure – counter-claim dismissed under Order 9 r.22 for non-attendance; Remedies – judgment, interest and costs awarded.
|
22 April 2010 |
|
Respondent’s admitted diversion of goods established liability; applicant recovered admitted sum with interest and costs.
Employment law – Sales representative’s duty to account for monies – breach of trust by diverting goods/invoices; Evidence – admissions in pleadings and confirmed minutes are binding; Special damages require strict proof; Dishonoured cheque and confirmed admission support liability; Interest from date respondent undertook to pay; costs follow the event.
|
22 April 2010 |
| March 2010 |
|
|
Plaintiff entitled to unpaid price; contractual 3% monthly interest reduced as unconscionable, interest and costs awarded.
Sale of Goods Act s48 – action for price; unenforced cheques and ledger as proof of debt; Civil Procedure Act s26 – court discretion on interest; contractual interest deemed unconscionable (3% p.m.) and reduced; award of pre-suit, commercial and post-judgment interest; nominal general damages; costs follow event.
|
25 March 2010 |
|
Consignment and breach proven but higher tyre price not proved; claimant awarded limited damages, interest and costs.
* Contract/consignment – existence of agreement evidenced by bill of lading and parties' conduct – consignee's obligation to clear, sell and remit proceeds less commission and expenses.
* Burden of proof – plaintiff must prove special damages and agreed price on a balance of probabilities.
* Consent partial judgment – binds parties and limits recoverable sums.
* Remedies – breach without proven agreed higher price yields compensatory general damages; pre‑suit interest requires agreement; court may award post‑judgment interest and costs.
|
25 March 2010 |
|
Supplier proved unpaid deliveries; court awarded unpaid invoiced sum, general damages, interest and costs against the respondents.
* Commercial law – goods supply – proof of delivery: Delivery Notes and matching invoices can establish entitlement to payment on balance of probabilities.
* Evidence – burden and standard: plaintiff who adduces credible documentary and oral evidence shifts burden; inconsistent defence testimony and absence of key witness weaken denial.
* Remedies – damages and interest: unpaid invoiced sums awarded as special damages, compensatory general damages for loss, commercial rate interest and costs.
|
25 March 2010 |
|
MDC agreement superseded the 1999 agency; defendant de facto terminated the MDC without required written notice and must repay sums received with interest.
* Agency law – effect of subsequent written agreement – clause superseding prior agreements cancels earlier agency; MDC agreement governs relationship.
* Contract formation – apparent authority and acceptance of signature – conduct of parties can validate signatory acts absent fraud.
* Termination – de facto termination and taking of goods – failure to give written notice as required by contract constitutes breach.
* Remedies – money had and received, interest, failure to prove special damages strictly leads to dismissal of those heads.
|
24 March 2010 |
|
Application to set aside dismissal denied where reinstatement improperly sought to restrain enforcement of a consent decree.
* Civil procedure – Order 9 r.23 – setting aside dismissal for non-appearance – mistake of counsel as sufficient cause.
* Evidence – unexplained/undisputed averment of counsel's excuse treated as admitted.
* Consent judgments – enforcement – remedy should be variation, contempt or stay, not an injunction restraining enforcement.
* Court discretion – refusal to reinstate where application lacks prospect of success and would waste court time.
|
10 March 2010 |
|
An on‑demand guarantee collateral to a mortgage is limited by Section 16, permitting a guarantor to raise triable issues.
* Civil procedure – summary judgment/leave to defend – defendant must show bona fide triable issue of fact or law. * Banking law – on‑demand guarantees/bonds – generally autonomous and payable on honest demand; exception for fraud. * Mortgage law – Section 16 Mortgage Act – obligations under collateral security (guarantee) cannot exceed mortgagor’s obligations under the mortgage. * Interaction of guarantees and mortgages – on‑demand guarantee collateral to mortgage may permit guarantor to raise defences where mortgage obligations are unclear.
|
10 March 2010 |
|
Leave to defend granted where absence of the mortgage deed raised a triable issue affecting guarantees collateral to the mortgage.
* Civil procedure – summary judgment – leave to defend – defendant must show bona fide triable issue of fact or law pleaded with sufficient particularity.
* Banking law – on‑demand guarantees – generally payable on demand absent clear fraud; autonomous from underlying contract.
* Mortgage law – Section 16 Mortgage Act – obligations of guarantor collateral to mortgage limited to mortgagor’s obligations; mortgage deed required to determine extent.
* Procedural consequence – absence of mortgage deed in summary proceedings can give rise to triable issues and justify leave to defend.
|
9 March 2010 |
|
Court stayed execution pending challenge to consent decree, conditional on deposit or security of the decretal sum within 60 days.
Stay of execution – Order 22 r.26 & s.98 CPA – consent decree generally upheld unless vitiated by fraud, mistake or misapprehension – cross-suit must show real possibility of success – mediation/ADR consistent with constitutional fair hearing – conditional stay on deposit/security.
|
9 March 2010 |
| February 2010 |
|
|
Judicial review struck out as premature where statutory appeal to Tax Appeals Tribunal was not exhausted and no justification pleaded.
Administrative law – judicial review – prerogative orders discretionary – collateral challenge to appealable decisions – need to exhaust statutory appeal (Tax Appeals Tribunal under EACCMA s.230) or plead inadequacy of alternative remedy.
|
23 February 2010 |
|
Application to release attached vehicle dismissed for failure to prove ownership or possession and for apparent fraudulent sale.
Civil Procedure — Attachment pending judgment — Order 40 r.8 read with Order 9 r.55 & r.57 — Objection to attachment — Proof of ownership and possession — Fraudulent transfer to defeat execution — Encumbrance by lease; lessee cannot sell without authority.
|
16 February 2010 |
