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
9 judgments
Advanced search

Court registries

All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
9 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
September 2002
Mrs. Olowu Motunrola v Ethiopian Airlines Ltd (HCCS NO. 917 Of 1999 ) (HCCS NO. 917 of 1999) [2002] UGHC 117 (25 September 2002)
Carrier strictly liable for loss of checked baggage under Warsaw Convention but recovery limited to $20 per kilogram absent special declaration.
Aviation law – carriage by air – Warsaw Convention Article 18(1) strict liability for loss of checked baggage; Article 22 limitation to US$20 per kg absent special declaration; evidentiary value of ticket, baggage tags and PIR; remedies: limited pecuniary liability, general damages, costs and interest.
 25 September 2002
Mohan Singh Bharj V Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 647 of 1999 ) (High Court Civil Suit No. 647 of 1999) [2002] UGHC 59 (20 September 2002)
Addendum upheld; the defendant liable for rent arrears and water bills for the tenancy, not for occupier’s post-termination holding over.
Tenancy agreement and Addendum – validity and effect – rent revision after repairs; Rent arrears – quantification; Holding-over – liability requires government authorization/acquiescence; Liability for utilities under tenancy covenant; Quantum of damages and interest; Costs awarded.
 20 September 2002
Anthony Byaruhanga v Hassan Bagada (Civil Suit No. 636 fo 1996) (Civil Suit No. 636 fo 1996) [2002] UGHC 46 (18 September 2002)
Both the plaintiff's refund claim and the defendant's profit counterclaim were dismissed for lack of proof.
Civil law – joint purchase of vehicle – determination of parties' contributions and possession; registration in one party's name where transfer signed by both and plaintiff lacked PIN; breach of agreement and denial of use require proof; special damages and profit claims must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved with records.
 18 September 2002
Oriweld Ltd & Ors V Didas Kataihwaho t/a M/s Key Agencies & Auctioneers & Anor (Civil Suit No. 699 of 1995) (Civil Suit No. 699 of 1995) [2002] UGHC 55 (13 September 2002)
Plaintiff failed to prove unlawful eviction; defendants lawfully re‑entered premises and suit is dismissed with costs.
Tenancy law – alleged unlawful eviction – burden of proof on the alleging party – Evidence Act ss.100–102; Re‑entry by owner – lawful possession where tenant not in proven possession; Remedies – dismissal and costs where claimant fails to prove breach.
 13 September 2002
Kaggwa v Kato (Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1998) [2002] UGHC 20 (12 September 2002)
Civil Procedure
 12 September 2002
Uganda v Lugolobi Lwetutte & 2 oers (HCT-00-CR-SC-01 22-2001.) (HCT-00-CR-SC-01 22-2001.) [2002] UGHC 65 (10 September 2002)
Close-range identification under torch and moonlight upheld; the accused convicted jointly for murder.
Criminal law – Murder – essential ingredients: death, unlawful act, malice aforethought, participation. Evidence – identification: proximity, duration, light (torch and moonlight), familiarity and locus inspection. Criminal liability – joint offenders/common purpose (section 22 Penal Code). Forensic evidence – post-mortem corroborating eyewitness accounts.
 10 September 2002
Zakula Nakalanzi v Bishamunyu Gersom (M.A No.24 Of 2000) (M.A No.24 of 2000) [2002] UGHC 78 (10 September 2002)
A magistrate’s dismissal of an objector without permitting evidence in attachment proceedings is a material procedural irregularity.
Civil procedure – Revision under s.84 Civil Procedure Act v. appeal – scope of High Court to call records and address substantive justice. Attachment proceedings – Order 19 r.56 – requirement for objector to adduce evidence of interest/possession. Procedural fairness – improper reliance on preliminary objection to deny objector opportunity to give evidence – material irregularity and injustice.
 10 September 2002
Gaster Lule v Victoria Hardware & Tool Ltd and Anor (Civil Appeal No. 103 of 1998) (Civil Appeal No. 103 of 1998) [2002] UGHC 19 (5 September 2002)
Appellant failed to prove vendor’s title; without a root of title purchaser cannot obtain valid ownership.
Land law – proof of title and root of title – purchaser must trace vendor’s root of title; incomplete transfer documents insufficient to prove sale; a vendor without title cannot pass good title; lease extensions or unauthorised documents do not create registrable title; failure to investigate title is fatal to specific performance claim.
 5 September 2002
Wodero v Lunco Contractors Ltd (Hct-04-cv-cs-0082/2001) [2002] UGHC 100 (5 September 2002)
Contract Law|Breach of Contract
 5 September 2002