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
7 judgments
Advanced search

Court registries

All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
7 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
September 1996
Gulyetonda v Muganwa Kajura and 2 Others (Election Petition 19 of 96) [1996] UGHC 51 (24 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
Jesse Gulyetonda v Henry Muganwa Kajura and Others (Election Petition 19 of 1996) [1996] UGHC 103 (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
Namoda v The New Vision Printing Publishers Corporation (Miscellaneous Application 27 of 1995) [1996] UGHC 66 (18 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
Bakunda Darlington v Dr. Kinyatta B.G.S. and Another (Election Petition 18 of 1996) [1996] UGHC 102 (16 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
Bakunda v Dr. Kinyatta and Another (Election Petition 18 of 1996) [1996] UGHC 64 (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
Wakida v Dr. Adeodata Kekitiinwa and Others (Civil Suit 338 of 1994) [1996] UGHC 95 (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
Jesse Gulyetonda v Muganwa Kajura and Others (Election Petition 19 of 1996) [1996] UGHC 65 (14 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