|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 1993 |
|
|
Specific-performance claim not time-barred; cause of action accrued on defendant's 1990 refusal, suit within limitation.
Limitation Act Cap 70 – section 4(1)(a) and section 4(6) – exception for specific performance; section 6 – 12-year limitation for recovery of land; accrual of cause of action; preliminary objection decided on plaint and annexures; administrator suing as successor in title.
|
30 December 1993 |
|
|
23 December 1993 |
|
Defendant vicariously liable for collision; plaintiff awarded repair costs plus limited loss-of-use and general damages, with costs and interest.
* Tort — Negligence — Road traffic collision — Motor vehicle entering main road from adjacent road — Vicarious liability of owner for driver’s negligence.
* Quantum — Special damages — Proof of repair costs by receipt; admissibility and challenge to garage receipt.
* Damages — Loss of use/loss of earnings — duty to mitigate; claimant must prove reasonable repair period to recover full non-use damages.
* Remedies — Award of repair costs, limited loss-of-earnings, general damages for inconvenience, costs and interest.
|
22 December 1993 |
|
Substituted service and written demand were held effective; default-decree set-aside application dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – application to set aside default decree – effectiveness of substituted service by publication; contract law – guarantee – requirement of written demand; frustration – absence from jurisdiction not grounds for discharge; creditor remedies and execution; action against principal and guarantor.
|
21 December 1993 |
|
|
21 December 1993 |
|
|
20 December 1993 |
|
Whether Uganda applies the English Matrimonial Causes Act and how the three‑year waiting rule operates in Uganda.
• Conflict of laws – reception of English matrimonial law – whether reception date locks in English law or the law as currently applied in England; application of Matrimonial Causes Act 1950 to Uganda subject to local circumstances.
• Family law – three‑year waiting rule for divorce petitions; proviso permitting leave for exceptional hardship or depravity; scope for flexibility where marriage has irretrievably broken down.
• Civil procedure – appealability and timeliness – late procedural challenges to trial magistrate’s ruling are barred.
|
20 December 1993 |
|
Court referred whether election rules restricting campaigning breach Articles 8, 17, 18 and 20 of the Constitution to Constitutional Court.
Constitutional law – Election rules – Whether provisions restricting public campaigning and regulating candidates’ meetings contravene freedoms of expression, assembly and association and non-discrimination (Articles 8, 17, 18, 20) – Reference to Constitutional Court under Article 87 and Rule 3(2).
|
14 December 1993 |
|
Whether specified Constituent Assembly Election Rules infringe fundamental rights and require referral to the Constitutional Court.
Constitutional procedure – referral under Article 87 and Rule 3(2) – whether trial court must refer substantial questions of constitutional interpretation to Constitutional Court; Constitutional rights – freedom of expression, assembly and association (Articles 8, 17, 18) and non-discrimination (Article 20) – challenge to election rules limiting campaigning and meetings; sufficiency of affidavits to ground a reference.
|
14 December 1993 |
|
Whether Constituent Assembly Election Rules unlawfully curtail freedoms of expression, assembly, association and political participation.
Constitutional law — Reference under Article 87 and Rule 3(2) — When a trial court must refer substantial constitutional questions to the Constitutional Court — Challenge to election rules for incompatibility with Articles 8, 17, 18 and 20 (freedoms of expression, assembly, association and protection from discrimination).
|
14 December 1993 |
|
Complainant’s credible identification and rejected alibi proved robbery; absence of weapon use meant conviction for simple, not capital, robbery.
Criminal law – Robbery – Identification evidence of a single witness – Alibi – Rejection of alibi where identification and circumstances corroborate presence – Capital robbery requires use or threat of deadly weapon during the offence – Indictment particulars must describe property (S.23(c)(i) Trial on Indictment Decree, 1971) – Police/investigative failures do not necessarily defeat properly corroborated prosecution evidence.
|
13 December 1993 |
|
Slight provocation can reduce an accused's liability from murder to manslaughter despite use of a deadly weapon.
* Criminal law – Homicide – proof beyond reasonable doubt that accused caused death; assessment of eyewitness credibility. * Murder – malice aforethought can be inferred from use of a deadly weapon and wounds to vulnerable parts. * Provocation – where present it may reduce murder to manslaughter. * Evidence – minor inconsistencies do not necessarily destroy witness credibility when other corroboration exists.
|
10 December 1993 |
|
Whether close-range identification and recent possession overcame missing witnesses and investigative lapses to prove capital robbery.
* Criminal law – Capital robbery – identification by a single witness observed at close range – reliability despite absence of formal parade and public exposure.
* Evidence – recent possession of stolen property – recovery of victim’s clothes and iron shortly after the robbery supports inference of guilt.
* Evidence – effect of missing/uncalled witnesses and investigative shortcomings – adverse but not necessarily fatal where overall evidence is cogent.
* Defence – alibi and alleged torture – accused bears no burden to prove alibi; such claims must be assessed against entire evidence.
|
8 December 1993 |
|
No prima facie case; insufficient evidence to connect the second accused to murder, robbery and attempted murder.
Criminal law – no‑case‑to‑answer submission; standard: whether a reasonable tribunal could convict if accused said nothing; identification evidence; insufficiency of evidence to connect co‑accused not identified by victim.
|
7 December 1993 |
|
Circumstantial evidence raising suspicion cannot sustain a murder conviction where a reasonable alternative hypothesis exists.
* Criminal law – Murder – essential ingredients: death, unlawful causation, causation by accused, malice aforethought. * Circumstantial evidence – conviction only where facts are inconsistent with innocence and exclude all reasonable alternative hypotheses. * Reasonable doubt – mere suspicion, however strong, insufficient to convict; benefit of doubt where a third party’s involvement is plausible.
|
6 December 1993 |
|
Victim’s age and unlawful intercourse proved, but insufficient forensic linkage to convict accused of defilement; convicted of attempt to defile.
* Criminal law – Defilement – Elements: proof of sexual intercourse, age under 18, unlawfulness and identity. * Evidence – Medical opinion – weight limited where conventional procedures not followed. * Evidence – Corroboration – eyewitness account and victim credible but need for forensic linking evidence. * Proof beyond reasonable doubt – suspicion insufficient to convict on full offence; conviction for attempt where applicable.
|
6 December 1993 |
|
Applicants failed to prove respondent's negligence; applicants' driver found negligent and claim dismissed with costs.
* Tort – Negligence – Motor vehicle collision – Burden of proof and standard of proof – preference of consistent defence evidence over uncorroborated plaintiff testimony. * Evidence – Res ipsa loquitur – not applicable where defendant offers a reasonable explanation. * Civil procedure – non‑appearance – dismissal of claim under Order 19 Rule 19.
|
3 December 1993 |
|
Section 1 notice under Act 20 of 1969 not required for Article 22(1) constitutional rights applications; S.I. No.26/1992 governs procedure.
Constitutional procedure – Article 22(1) jurisdiction for enforcement of fundamental rights – Article 22(5) rule‑making power – Section 1, Civil Procedure and Limitation (Misc. Provisions) Act 1969 inapplicable to Article 22 applications – validity and sufficiency of statutory notice – Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1992 (S.I. No.26 of 1992).
|
2 December 1993 |
|
Amendment of a notice of motion under Order 6 r18 allowed despite delay where no prejudice or falsity was established.
Civil Procedure – Amendment of pleadings – Notice of motion treated as pleading under Civil Procedure Act – Order 6 Rule 18 – Amendments to be freely allowed before hearing if no injustice – Delay and alleged false affidavit not fatal where not shown to prejudice or where affidavit is unchallenged.
|
2 December 1993 |