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
4 judgments
Advanced search

Court registries

All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
4 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
December 2013
Birigwa v Walusimbi and 3 Others (HCT-00-LD-CS- NO. 89-2011) [2013] UGHC 265 (16 December 2013)
Defendants were declared bonafide occupants, with Kibanja interest, not trespassers; plaintiff's suit dismissed.
Land Law – Customary tenure – Kibanja interest – Bonafide occupant status – Land Reform Decree – Land Act 1998
 16 December 2013
Maruk Joshua v Attorney General and Another (Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2013) [2013] UGHC 273 (16 December 2013)
Appeal dismissed; Judicial Service Commission's decision procedurally proper despite allegations of bias and misdirection.
Judicial Service - Disciplinary measures - Delayed judgment - Evaluation of evidence - Judicial code contraventions.
 16 December 2013
World Botanical Extracts Ltd v Attorney General and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 364/2013) [2013] UGHC 288 (12 December 2013)
Administrative bodies must afford affected parties a fair hearing before cancelling permits where factual disputes exist.
Administrative law – Judicial review – Right to be heard – Cancellation of export permit – Quasi-judicial proceedings – Article 42 of the Constitution – Principles of natural justice – Certiorari and mandamus.
 12 December 2013
Uganda v Lubowa (No.Hct-00-ac-sc -0088/2013) [2013] UGHC 4 (3 December 2013)
Conviction for embezzlement based on circumstantial evidence showing 20,000,000/= went missing from the accused’s custody.
Criminal law – Embezzlement (Anti‑Corruption Act s.19(b)(i),(ii)) – circumstantial evidence; custody and exclusive access to funds; absence of system error or third‑party theft. Defence theories: mis‑posting, third‑party theft, inexperience rejected as afterthoughts. Sentence: fine or imprisonment and restitution ordered
 3 December 2013