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
3 judgments
Advanced search

Court registries

All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
3 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
December 2001
Babweyaka and Others v Kampala District Land Board and Another (Civil Suit No. 511 of 2001) [2001] UGHC 120 (21 December 2001)
Plaintiffs were neither lawful nor bona fide occupants; the lease and certificate of title were lawfully obtained; judgment for defendants with costs.
Land Act 1998 s30 — meaning of "lawful occupant" and "bona fide occupant"; twelve‑year occupation requirement for bona fide status; omission of purchasers from s30(2) deliberate; authority of statutory owner to lease; lawfulness of certificate of title grant.
 21 December 2001
Wodamba Nathan v M/S KOTS (U) Ltd (HCT-04-CV-MA-0069/2000) [2001] UGHC 134 (21 December 2001)
Where a defendant raises bona fide triable issues (e.g., payment/absence of consideration), unconditional leave to defend a cheque claim must be granted.
Civil procedure — Summary procedure (O.33) — Claims on cheque/dishonoured bill — leave to appear and defend — bona fide triable issues (absence of consideration, payment, fraud, duress, illegality) — when summary disposal inappropriate. Bills of exchange/cheques — interest — interest in summary claim must be an amount fixed by statute or by contract; unilateral fixation of non‑statutory interest may remove claim from O.33 procedure. Pleadings — affidavit evidence raising payment/consideration or wrong party may attract unconditional leave to defend.
 21 December 2001
Musoke v Byenkya and Rwese (Civil Appeal No. 50/2001) [2001] UGHC 125 (11 December 2001)
Failure to serve summons within 12 months is a substantive defect rendering proceedings a nullity; suit reinstated subject to limitation.
Civil procedure – service of process – Order 9 rule 16(1) – mandatory requirement; failure to serve within 12 months renders proceedings nullity. Res judicata – preliminary objections not finally determined do not bar re‑raising. Procedural technicalities v substantive justice – service requirement is substantive, not merely technical. Effect of fresh summons – cannot validate proceedings tainted by prior defective service.
 11 December 2001