|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 1996 |
|
|
Plaintiffs had standing and a cause against the appointing body, but sued wrong individual Regents; court substituted the Orukuraato and awarded costs.
Civil procedure – preliminary objections – non‑compliance with procedural form not necessarily fatal where intention in pleadings clear; locus standi – plaintiffs may enforce cultural rights under Article 37; cause of action – plaint disclosed reasonable cause against institution but not against individual Regents; substitution of parties – court may strike out improperly sued individuals and substitute the proper appointing body (Orukuraato) under O.1 r.10(2) CPR.
|
5 November 1996 |
|
Plaintiffs had standing and a cause of action, but the wrong individual Regents were sued; the Orukuraato should be substituted and costs awarded.
• Civil procedure – preliminary objections – locus standi, cause of action and misjoinder of parties; substitution of parties under Order 1 rule 10(2) and inherent jurisdiction.
• Constitutional law – Article 37 – right to promote culture and standing to enforce cultural institutional rights.
• Parties – institutional defendant (Orukuraato) vs individual Regents; costs for suing wrong parties.
|
5 November 1996 |
| October 1996 |
|
|
Court awards damages for defamatory publication alleging criminal offenses against the plaintiff, ruling in his favor.
Defamation - Libel - Publication of false allegations - Imputation of criminal offenses - Remedies for defamation.
|
28 October 1996 |
|
Whether a retirement circular formed a binding contract and whether the bank could offset a housing loan from termination benefits.
Contract law – Circulars as invitation to treat; application form as offer and acceptance mechanism; incorporation of special repayment terms for secured housing loan into voluntary termination contract; unlawful offset of housing loan and retention of title deed; entitlement to damages and costs.
|
17 October 1996 |
|
Employer breached retirement-package terms by offsetting and using the plaintiff’s retirement payments to repay a secured housing loan without agreed repayment terms.
Employment law – voluntary early retirement schemes – circulars as invitations to treat and part of contractual matrix; secured housing loans – requirement that repayment terms be agreed before departure; employer’s offsetting of retirement benefits – breach and damages.
|
17 October 1996 |
|
High Court set aside a consent taxation for material irregularity and ordered a fresh bill prepared and re-taxed in accordance with taxation rules.
Civil Procedure Act s.84 – Revisionary powers – High Court may call for record where lower court or Registrar acted with material irregularity or injustice. Taxation of costs – Registrar’s taxation may be set aside even if entered by consent where it results in injustice or fails to comply with applicable rules. Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules, 1932 – Requirement to separate service and professional charges; bill items must be provable and not exaggerated or repeated. Instruction fees – must be computed on the amount actually awarded in judgment, not on claimed or counter-claimed sums.
|
7 October 1996 |
|
High Court set aside a registrar's consent taxation for material irregularity and ordered fresh taxation complying with taxation rules.
Civil procedure — Revision — High Court calling for record under section 84 CPA where a Registrar/taxing officer acted with injustice or material irregularity; Taxation of costs — consent taxation and limits to setting aside absent fraud/undue influence; Instruction fees — must be computed on judgment amount, not unawarded counter-claim; Bill of Costs — compliance with The Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules 1932 and SI No.3 of 1998; Setting aside taxation and remitting fresh taxation.
|
7 October 1996 |
| September 1996 |
|
|
An election petition filed in the wrong district registry is incompetent; a lapsed advocate practising certificate alone does not invalidate filings.
Election law – Election petition venue – Rule 5(6) Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules – Mandatory filing at District Registry of constituency – failure to comply renders petition incompetent and deprives court of jurisdiction. Civil procedure – Preliminary objections – wrong registry/venue – competence and jurisdiction. Advocates – Practising certificate – lapse of certificate does not automatically invalidate documents or render petition incompetent. Evidence – Affidavit allegations as matters of evidence/credibility, not necessarily incurable defects.
|
24 September 1996 |
|
An election petition filed in the wrong High Court registry under mandatory Rule 5(6) is incompetent and is struck off.
Election law – Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules 1996, Rule 5(6) – filing venue mandatory – petition filed in wrong High Court registry is fatal and incompetent; Procedure – affidavits commissioned by advocates without valid practising certificates examined; substantive justice vs. procedural compliance – mandatory statutory filing rules cannot be ignored.
|
24 September 1996 |
|
Application to pay judgment debt by instalments struck out for wrong procedure and insufficient, non‑credible evidence.
Civil procedure – application to pay decretal amount by instalments – proper procedure: Chamber Summons under Order 18 CPR v Notice of Motion; Court’s inherent jurisdiction under section 101 Civil Procedure Act to vary payment terms; sufficiency of evidence of sickness/financial incapacity; bona fides and prior conduct of judgment debtor in instalment applications.
|
18 September 1996 |
|
An election petition without a valid accompanying affidavit cannot be amended and was struck out to protect statutory filing limits.
Election law – Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules 1996 – Rule 3 and Rule 4(8) – petition must be accompanied by a valid affidavit; invalid affidavit (commissioned by person without valid practising certificate) renders petition non-existent; amendment cannot cure non‑existent petition; striking out and costs. Statutory time limits – section 90(3) – amendments cannot be used to evade filing deadlines.
|
16 September 1996 |
|
An election petition lacking a valid accompanying affidavit cannot be amended and must be struck out; costs awarded.
Election law – requirement that an election petition be accompanied by a valid affidavit – validity of affidavits commissioned by advocates/commissioners lacking valid practising certificates – inability to amend a non-existent petition – amendment cannot be used to circumvent statutory filing periods.
|
16 September 1996 |
|
Allocation of public land without following statutory re-entry/forfeiture procedure is unlawful; plaintiff’s lease restored and title cancelled.
Public Lands Act – re-entry and forfeiture – statutory notice, opportunity to remedy and gazettement required before reallocation; Registration of Titles Act – registered title prima facie absolute but defeasible where registration procured by illegality/fraud; Time in lease agreements – effect of registration delay and parties’ conduct on whether time is of the essence; Illegality in allocation of public land – nullity of subsequent title obtained without compliance with mandatory procedures; Remedies – declaration, restoration/extension of lease, cancellation of certificate of title, costs.
|
16 September 1996 |
|
A petition filed in the wrong High Court registry is incompetent and may be struck off; Rule 5(6) is mandatory.
Election law – Procedure – Rule 5(6) of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules, 1996 is mandatory; petitions relating to constituencies within a High Court District must be presented at that District Registry; misfiling is fatal and renders a petition incompetent; involvement of advocates without valid practising certificates raises disciplinary concerns.
|
14 September 1996 |
| August 1996 |
|
|
The applicant's challenge to taxation failed because the taxing officer properly applied the 1996 Rules and exercised judicial discretion.
Taxation of costs — application of Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules — 1982 Rules read with 1996 Amendment — commencement and effect of amendment — scope for interfering with taxing officer's exercise of discretion — requirement to specify alleged wrong principles in appeal.
|
22 August 1996 |
|
Whether the 1996 amended Advocates' taxation rules applied and whether the taxing officer misapplied principles or exceeded discretion.
Taxation of costs – application of Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules – effect of 1996 Amendment replacing sixth schedule to 1982 Rules. Administrative law – appellate review of taxing officer’s exercise of discretion – interference only in exceptional cases. Evidence – inadmissibility of unauthenticated newspaper cutting to prove value of subject matter. Costs – instruction fees and assessment of quantum; inclusion and disallowance of items in taxation.
|
22 August 1996 |
|
Registered ownership supports trespass claim; unreliable valuation defeats claimed special damages; general damages awarded.
Property law – trespass – extraction of murram – registered title as prima facie possession – customary tenant’s authorization insufficient – valuation evidence for special damages must be reliable and scientific; general damages appropriate where special damages are unproved.
|
16 August 1996 |
|
A company’s name/share transfers do not discharge its employer obligations; breach entitles employee to damages, interest and costs.
Employment law – Contract continuity despite corporate name/share transfers – Change of company name does not extinguish employer’s obligations; indemnity/sale among shareholders cannot defeat employee’s contractual rights; employee not shown to have absconded; damages for breach of fixed‑term employment contract (special and general), interest and costs.
|
8 August 1996 |
| July 1996 |
|
|
Improper discharge for abduction under reconciliation; court required Section 125 MCA application for case disposition.
Criminal procedure – discharge of accused – reconciliation under Section 156 MCA inapplicable for abduction charges – proper use of Section 125 MCA.
|
1 July 1996 |
|
Case dismissal reversed due to failure to notify complainant, impacting child's welfare.
Criminal Law – Neglect to provide for a child – Dismissal for non-appearance of prosecutor – Requirement for notifying complainant of hearing.
|
1 July 1996 |
|
Erroneous dismissal under s.117 MCA rectified; trial to continue under s.125 and 126 for fair judgment.
Criminal procedure – appeal and revision – improper dismissal under s. 117 Magistrates Courts Act – correct application of s. 125 and 126.
|
1 July 1996 |
|
Sentence of corporal punishment deemed illegal for a 16-year-old offender under section 191(3) of MCA 1970.
Criminal Law – Theft – Sentencing – Legality of corporal punishment for offenders aged 16 – Section 191(3) MCA 1970
|
1 July 1996 |
| May 1996 |
|
|
Failure to prove and particularise fraud protects the applicant’s registered title; respondents liable for trespass, eviction and mesne profits.
Land law – Re-entry and determination of lease – Effect of registration under the Registration of Titles Act; Registered proprietor presumed owner unless fraud strictly proved; Pleading requirements – particulars of fraud under Order 6 r.2; Possession – continued occupation after determination amounts to trespass; Remedies – declaration, eviction, mesne profits and interest; Special damages require strict proof.
|
31 May 1996 |
|
Registered proprietor affirmed; defendants held trespassers; mesne profits and eviction awarded.
Land law – Re-entry and determination of lease – effect of re-entry on lessee’s interest; Registration – protection of bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration under the Registration of Titles Act; Pleading – requirement to plead particulars of fraud; Possession – continuing occupation after determination of lease amounts to trespass; Remedies – award of mesne profits and interest; Counter-claim – special damages must be strictly proved.
|
31 May 1996 |
|
Six months' notice for repossessed commercial premises; removal of machinery held detinue/conversion, award for return or Ugs.350m and damages.
Property law – Repossession of commercial premises – Reasonable notice period (six months) for tenants to vacate; unlawful holding over. Tort – Detinue and conversion – removal of machinery by outgoing tenant/occupier; remedies include return of chattels or payment in lieu. Evidence – court may accept credible witness valuation where documentary proof lacking; expert valuer not always required. Damages – refusal to award mesne profits where insufficient evidence to assess fair rent.
|
29 May 1996 |
|
Application for leave to seek certiorari/prohibition dismissed as time‑barred and misdirected where statutory remedies existed.
Judicature Act s.34(6) — mandatory six‑month limit for leave to apply for prerogative orders; Expropriated Properties Act — appeal as statutory remedy; Registration of Titles Act — rectification remedy; prerogative writs (certiorari, prohibition) — appropriateness and timing; prohibition is preventive not corrective.
|
21 May 1996 |
|
Leave for certiorari/prohibition refused as statutory time limits and alternative remedies preclude prerogative relief.
Judicature Act s.34(6) — six-month time limit for leave to apply for prerogative orders; Expropriated Properties Act — statutory appeal as primary remedy; Registration of Titles Act s.185 — correction of register remedy; Prerogative writs (certiorari/prohibition) inappropriate where statutory remedies exist or act is complete; Registrar acted on repossession certificate, not discretionary decision; Prohibition is preventive and unsuitable after completion of the impugned act.
|
21 May 1996 |
| April 1996 |
|
|
Plaintiff failed to prove fraudulent transfer; registered proprietor was a bona fide purchaser and title was protected, suit dismissed with costs.
Land law – allegation of fraudulent transfer of registered land – strict proof of actual fraud required to impeach a registered title under the Registration of Titles Act. Registered titles – protection of bona fide purchaser for value without notice (Registration of Titles Act ss. 145, 184, 189). Burden of proof – higher standard where fraud is alleged; circumstantial evidence insufficient without Land Office or direct proof. Procedure – non-service of one defendant does not prevent proceeding against another properly before court.
|
22 April 1996 |
|
Plaintiff failed to prove fraudulent transfer; the purchaser was held a bona fide purchaser whose registered title is protected.
Land law — Registration of Titles Act — Conclusive effect of registered certificate of title and limited exceptions for fraud; burden of strict proof of fraud. Property — bona fide purchaser for value without notice — protection of registered title. Civil procedure — non-service of co-defendant; proceeding against one defendant only.
|
22 April 1996 |
|
Court upheld originating‑summons procedure and timeliness but dismissed foreclosure for defective (unsigned) demand evidence.
Mortgage law – Foreclosure and sale – Originating summons under Order 34 (rule 7, rule 3A) and section 2 of Mortgage Decree 1974 – Procedural correctness; Limitation Act – effect of governmental appropriation on accrual and computation of limitation; Evidence – requirement for signed demand/annexures to prove sums due; Caveat removal – legality where property was under government control.
|
19 April 1996 |
|
Originating summons appropriate for foreclosure but suit dismissed because plaintiff failed to prove a valid demand for sums due.
Mortgage foreclosure — originating summons under Order 34 — procedural adequacy; Limitation Act and interruption by Government appropriation; requirement of formal demand and admissible documentary proof; caveat removal invalid while property under Government/Custodian control.
|
15 April 1996 |
|
Court ordered a company plaintiff to furnish Shs.200,000,000 security for costs within 30 days or face strike out.
Security for costs — Order 21 r.1 Civil Procedure Rules; Companies Act — court may require company plaintiff to give security where credible evidence shows likely inability to pay defendants’ costs; quantum of security — court’s assessment of reasonableness; failure to furnish security — strike out of proceedings.
|
4 April 1996 |
|
Whether a repossession certificate issued after lease re‑entry can defeat a trespass claim and confer title.
Expropriated Properties Act – certificate of repossession – effect where lease terminated by re‑entry; Leasehold – re‑entry for non‑payment of ground rent – termination and noting on register; Trespass to land – unlawful occupation after lease determination; Remedies – injunction, eviction, compensatory damages, interest and costs.
|
1 April 1996 |
| February 1996 |
|
|
A misnamed local authority after statutory change can be a bona fide mistake and does not automatically defeat a plaint.
Local government — naming of defendant after statutory reorganisation — bona fide mistake in naming former statutory entity — amendment/substitution of parties; Civil Procedure — preliminary objection under Order 6 rule 27 CPR; Statutory notice — requirement and proof of service for suits against local authorities.
|
23 February 1996 |
|
Preliminary objection overruled: misnaming of a reconstituted local authority was a bona fide, amendable mistake; notice/service not disproved.
Civil procedure – preliminary objection – Suit against a formerly‑named local authority after statutory reorganisation – whether misnaming renders plaint incompetent; service of statutory notice on local authorities; bona fide mistake and amendment under the CPR.
|
23 February 1996 |
|
Second defendant liable for negligence in leaving lorry parked without adequate warnings; first defendant not negligent.
Negligence – vehicle broken down/parked on roadway – adequacy and deployment of warning devices; contributory negligence – alleged speed of oncoming minibus; assessment of general damages for multiple serious fractures and residual disability; award of costs against negligent defendant.
|
22 February 1996 |
|
Claim to prove a will in Uganda dismissed because deceased was domiciled in India and foreign probate/re-sealing was required.
Probate law – Jurisdiction – Domicile of deceased abroad – Requirement to obtain foreign probate and re-seal under Probate (Re-sealing) Act (Cap.144) s.3 before Ugandan court can give effect to foreign grant; validity of will and caveat where primary probate lies abroad.
|
12 February 1996 |
|
Court dismissed Ugandan probate suit because deceased was domiciled in India and foreign probate must be obtained and re-sealed first.
Private international law – Domicile – Deceased domiciled in India – Probate jurisdiction; Probate (Re‑Sealing) Act (Cap.144) s.3 – foreign grant to be produced and re-sealed to operate in Uganda; Jurisdiction – necessity of obtaining foreign probate before Ugandan recognition; Caveat and declaratory relief on will – jurisdictional bar when deceased domiciled abroad.
|
12 February 1996 |