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

12 judgments

Advanced search

Court registries

All years

All months

Filters

Sort by:

12 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
February 1997
Halling Manzoor v Serwan Sing Bahra (Civil Suit 151 of 95) [1997] UGHC 6 (26 February 1997) Specific performance refused where defendant lacked legal title due to government vesting; purchase money refundable. Property law – expropriated/departed-Asian properties; vesting in Government; ministerial consent; validity of sale; specific performance not available where vendor lacks title; restitution of purchase money and reimbursement of proved disbursements.	26 February 1997
Sugar Corporation Of Uganda Limited v Kanoblic Group Of Companies Limited (Miscellaneous Application 653 of 1996) [1997] UGHC 15 (26 February 1997) Whether an award of interest at 30% p.a. implied compound interest and whether the Registrar’s certificate and garnishee order were valid. Arbitration award — interest at specified rate — interpretation whether interest is simple or compound; Deputy Registrar’s certificate of interest; garnishee proceedings; effect of payment from security lodged pending appeal; acquiescence and estoppel to challenge interest calculations.	26 February 1997
Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd. v Kanoblic Group of Companies Ltd. (Civil Application 653 of 1996) [1997] UGHC 37 (26 February 1997) Deputy Registrar’s compound-interest certificate set aside where arbitration award did not authorize compound interest. Arbitration award – interest – whether interest at a stated rate implied compound interest; Deputy Registrar’s certificate – illegality where award not authorizing compound interest; garnishee proceedings – enforcement prevented where decretal amount satisfied by security; acquiescence by counsel insufficient to convert simple into compound interest.	26 February 1997
Jaso Enterprises Limited v Attorney General (Civil Suit 401 of 1994) [1997] UGHC 16 (24 February 1997) Failure to produce tender invoices and primary documents dismissed claim for unpaid transport services. * Contract/Tender – transport services – requirement to submit invoices as per tender terms – proof of services and quantum. * Evidence – s.90 Evidence Act – where terms are reduced to document, parol evidence inadmissible; primary/secondary documentary evidence required. * Burden of proof – plaintiff must prove services rendered and how claimed sum arose; failure to produce invoices fatal to claim. * Admissibility – acknowledgements/correspondence insufficient absent primary invoices.	24 February 1997
Jaso Enterprises Ltd. v Attorney General (Civil Suit 401 of 1994) [1997] UGHC 29 (24 February 1997) Plaintiff’s claim for payment under a written tender failed for lack of the required documentary proof of services and quantum. * Contract/tender law – claim for transport services under a written tender – requirement to prove performance and quantum by documentary evidence. * Evidence Act s.90 – where terms are reduced to writing, parol evidence is inadmissible to establish contractual terms or quantum. * Burden of proof – plaintiff’s failure to produce invoices/primary documents defeats claim. * Civil procedure – dismissal with costs where claimant fails to establish claim on balance of probabilities.	24 February 1997
All Ports Freight Service v Kamanyi and Sembuya (Civil Suit 409 / 95) [1997] UGHC 24 (20 February 1997) Stay of execution granted conditionally where large money decree posed real risk of substantial loss and security was inadequate. Civil procedure – Stay of execution – Section 101 Civil Procedure Act; Order 39 Rule 4(3) – requirements: substantial loss, no undue delay, adequate security; scope of "substantial loss" (includes potential loss); security for money decrees – land may be acceptable if unencumbered; joint and several liability affects required security.	20 February 1997
Kassam v Commissioner for Land Registration and Another (Miscellaneous Application 524 of 96) [1997] UGHC 5 (20 February 1997) Affidavit defects and improperly sealed annexures rendered the interlocutory Notice of Motion incompetent and it was struck out. Civil procedure – interlocutory applications – s.190 Registration of Titles Act – locus standi of unregistered equitable owner – affidavits – Order 17 r.3(1) distinguishing personal knowledge and information/belief – duty to disclose sources – Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Rules – sealing and identification of annexures – defective affidavit renders Notice of Motion incompetent and liable to be struck out.	20 February 1997
Kayimbye Sebinene v Hon P. K. Ssemwogerere And Another (Civil Suit 957 of 1993) [1997] UGHC 7 (11 February 1997) Registered ownership alone does not establish possession for trespass; plaintiff failed to prove defendants liable. Trespass to land – ownership versus possession – possession is required to sue for trespass; proof on balance of probabilities – identification of tortfeasors; vicarious liability – liability of committee for volunteers; assessment of special damages for excavated materials (valuation evidence).	11 February 1997
Musajjalumbwa v Hon. Paulo Kawanga Ssemogerere and Another (Civil Suit 957 of 1993) [1997] UGHC 34 (11 February 1997) Registered ownership proved and murram excavation occurred, but plaintiff failed to prove possession or defendant liability, so claim dismissed. Land law – trespass to land – requirement of actual/physical possession to sue for trespass; Evidence – burden to prove identity of trespassers and employer/agency; Vicarious liability – committee not liable absent proof agents/employees committed the tort; Murram quarrying – longstanding customary/extractive use relevant to possession and attribution of conduct.	11 February 1997
Steven Wasswa and Another v Charles Mutawe Sendikwanawa (Civil Suit 1029 of 1995) [1997] UGHC 38 (7 February 1997) Lessee who elected to purchase reversionary interest but breached payment is estopped from claiming lease rights. * Property law – lease v. purchase – execution of sale of reversionary interest displaces lease; two estates cannot co-exist. * Doctrine of election/estoppel by election – lessee who elects to treat third party as owner and enters purchase contract cannot later assert lease rights. * Validity of sale by beneficiary – knowledge and dealings with beneficiary and administrators’ awareness can preclude challenge to locus. * Relief against forfeiture – section 27 relief limited to non-payment of rent; not available to excuse breach of purchase contract.	7 February 1997
Wasswa and Another v Mutawe sendikwanawa (Civil Suit 1029 of 1995) [1997] UGHC 18 (7 February 1997) Lessee who elected to purchase the reversionary interest and breached payment is estopped from asserting the lease; forfeiture relief denied. * Property law – lease versus purchase of reversionary interest – incompatibility of co-existing estates. * Election/estoppel – lessee electing to treat vendor as owner and entering sale is estopped from later asserting lease. * Effect of part payment and deposit of title as security – supports purchaser relationship. * Relief from forfeiture (Judicature Statute s.27) – inapplicable where dispute arises from breach of purchase contract, not mere non-payment of rent. * Vendor locus and administrators’ awareness – administrators’ acquiescence and vendor’s dealing with lessee support validity of transaction.	7 February 1997
Namusisi and Others v Ntabazi (Civil Suit No. 887 of 1988 - RULING -1) [1997] UGHC 21 (5 February 1997) Undated written agreement irrelevant and inadmissible where it contradicts written memorial and concerns different land. Evidence — Admissibility of documents — Relevance of written agreement to issues in suit; extrinsic oral evidence cannot be used to contradict or vary a written instrument; production for identification does not automatically cure irrelevance.	5 February 1997