Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search

High Court of Uganda

The High Court of Uganda is the third court of record in order of hierarchy and has unlimited original jurisdiction, which means that it can try any case of any value or crime of any magnitude. Appeals from all Magistrates Courts go to the High Court. 

The High Court is headed by the Honorable Principal Judge who is responsible for the administration of the court and has supervisory powers over Magistrate's courts. 

Physical address
Plot 2, the Square Kampala
Visit website
http://www.judiciary.go.ug/data/smenu/9/High
11 judgments
Advanced search

Court registries

All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
11 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
August 1993
Kintu v The Registered Trustees of Uganda Centre of St. John Ambulance Association (Civil Suit 219 of 1993) [1993] UGHC 54 (30 August 1993)

 

 30 August 1993
Engola v Acire (Civil Suit 370 of 1992) [1993] UGHC 53 (26 August 1993)

 

 26 August 1993
Mayombwe & 11 Others v Wamala (Miscellaneous Application 97 of 1993) [1993] UGHC 71 (26 August 1993)

 

 26 August 1993
Mukasa v Matovu (Civil Suit 354 of 1988) [1993] UGHC 56 (26 August 1993)

 

 26 August 1993
Yuda Mayombwe and 11 Others v Yusufu Wamala (Miscellaneous Application 97 of 1993) [1993] UGHC 102 (26 August 1993)
Court restrained title registration pending resolution of a dispute over succession and beneficiaries’ caveat.
Succession law – certificate of succession – dispute over extent of estate and right to deal with residual land. Land registration – caveat – interim restraint on Registrar of Titles pending determination of ownership. Interim relief – preservation of status quo, risk of irreparable harm where registration would defeat pending litigation.
 26 August 1993
Nangunga Livestock Co-operative Society Ltd v M/s Energo Project Corporation (Civil Suit No.207 of 1993) [1993] UGHC 12 (23 August 1993)
Original documentary evidence admissible despite not being annexed; authenticity disputes require expert proof.
Civil procedure – admissibility of documents – requirement to annex documents to plaint (Order 7) – best-evidence rule – original document admissible; authenticity disputes requiring expert evidence.
 23 August 1993
Livingstone Kato V Filimoni Kagwa (CIivil Suit No.9 of 1992) [1993] UGHC 3 (19 August 1993)
Applicant failed to show urgency or produce a credible affidavit to hear setting-aside during court vacation.
Civil procedure – Court vacation rules – leave to apply during vacation to set aside ex parte judgment; urgency requirement. Affidavits – material inconsistencies and deliberate falsehoods render affidavit suspect. Order 17 r.3 CPR – requirement to distinguish facts within deponent’s knowledge from matters of information and belief and to state sources.
 19 August 1993
David Mukasa Sendaula & Anor V Christine Nakalanzi & Anor (Civil Suit No. 423 of 1991) [1993] UGHC 2 (18 August 1993)
Limitation runs from discovery of fraud; the applicant’s land claim was timely and the preliminary objection was overruled.
Limitation Act (Cap. 70) s.6 and s.26 – recovery of land – commencement of limitation period on discovery of fraud; caveat as evidence of discovery. Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 r.11(d) and (e) – rejection of plaint for being time‑barred or frivolous – preliminary objection procedure. Triable issues – factual disputes on knowledge and discovery render limitation a matter for trial. Representative actions – administrators suing for estate rights and implication for accrual of cause of action.
 18 August 1993
Uganda v Bosco Okello alias Anyanya (High Court Criminal Sessions Case No. 143/91) [1993] UGHC 93 (17 August 1993)
The accused was acquitted as the prosecution failed to establish his identity as the assailant beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal Law - Murder - Elements of unlawful death and malice aforethought - Identification by single witness - Corroboration.
 17 August 1993
Uganda v No. RA 25721 cpl. Mukasa (Criminal Session Case 289 of 1992) [1993] UGHC 66 (17 August 1993)
Possession of recently stolen property led to conviction as receiver with knowledge, not as principal robber.
Criminal law – aggravated robbery – elements: theft and use of deadly weapon; possession of recently stolen property – presumption of thief or receiver with knowledge; standard to rebut (balance of probabilities); conviction as receiver (s.298(1)); sentencing considerations (violence, first offender, remand).
 17 August 1993
Uganda v Odwong and Another (High Court Criminal Session 282 of 92) [1993] UGHC 41 (17 August 1993)
Prosecution failed to prove aggravated robbery and rape beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of deadly‑weapon proof and insufficient corroboration.
Criminal law – aggravated robbery – requirement to prove use or threat of deadly weapon (expert/evidential proof if firearm) – identification evidence – risk of bias where witnesses related or have motive to lie – rape – need for corroboration where prosecution witnesses may have motive; burden remains on prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
 17 August 1993