|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| 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 |
| November 1995 |
|
|
Letters of administration revoked for failure to exhibit accounts and mismanagement; new administrators appointed and defendants ordered to account.
Succession law – Revocation of letters of administration – Just cause under s.233(2) – Failure to exhibit inventory/account as required by s.280 – Grant become useless/inoperative – Mismanagement and disposal of estate assets – Appointment of new administrators – Order to account and deposit letters.
|
24 November 1995 |
|
A court upheld Amin-era vesting and management of expropriated property and validated a bank encumbrance created by appointed managers, dismissing the plaintiff's claims.
Expropriation law – Amin-era decrees and Expropriated Properties Act 1982 – vesting of abandoned/ascribed assets; Government-appointed management – authority to borrow and create encumbrances; validity of bank mortgage/caveat created by state-appointed managers; remedies of former owners against lenders and State under the Expropriated Properties Act.
|
14 November 1995 |
|
Plaintiff's trespass claim failed because defendant's earlier-registered title established ownership; suit dismissed with costs.
Property law — title disputes — competing registered titles; evidence and priority of registration; allegations of fraud in procurement of certificate of title; trespass claims require ownership proved on a balance of probabilities.
|
3 November 1995 |
| October 1995 |
|
|
Owner held vicariously liable for servant-driver’s negligent overtaking; plaintiff awarded special and general damages.
Negligence – unsafe overtaking on a hill/curve; vicarious liability of owner for servant-driver; proof of ownership despite non-registration; quantum of special and general damages; failure to prove contributory negligence.
|
18 October 1995 |
| September 1995 |
|
|
|
15 September 1995 |
| August 1995 |
|
|
|
18 August 1995 |
| July 1995 |
|
|
Court convicts and sentences accused for defiling a minor, with corroborated testimony and medical evidence outweighing retracted confession.
Criminal Law – Defilement – elements of proof – admissibility of retracted confession – age determination of a minor.
|
12 July 1995 |
|
|
7 July 1995 |
|
|
1 July 1995 |
| June 1995 |
|
|
An individual who is neither director nor shareholder lacked authority to sue in the company’s name; proceedings were improper and costs awarded.
Company law – authority to sue – who may institute proceedings on behalf of a company – directors and shareholders; Company law – unauthorised commencement of suit – ratification and its requirements; Civil procedure – striking out actions plainly lacking capacity; Costs – solicitor-and-client and party-and-party awards for improper institution of proceedings.
|
6 June 1995 |
|
Proceedings in a company’s name instituted by a person without authority are a nullity unless validly ratified; costs may be ordered against the instigating party.
Company law – capacity and authority to sue – proceedings brought in a company’s name by a person who is not a director or shareholder – want of authority a nullity unless validly ratified – ratification must come from proper corporate organ – objection to authority may be struck out if defect plainly appears; costs consequences where proceedings improperly instituted.
|
6 June 1995 |
| May 1995 |
|
|
Accused sentenced to 18 months imprisonment for manslaughter after drunken altercation results in brother's death.
Criminal Law – Manslaughter – Plea of guilty – Sentence considerations – Intoxication as mitigating factor in sentencing.
|
31 May 1995 |
|
Forfeiture of recognisance, unlawful taxation/enforcement of private costs, improper attachments, and correction of excessive default sentences.
Criminal procedure – recognisance/bail forfeiture – forfeiture requires sworn evidence of breach under Magistrates’ Court Act. Costs – private prosecutor’s bill cannot be enforced absent an express costs order in judgment. Enforcement – attachment of property and arrest to enforce an unlawfully-allowed bill of costs is unlawful. Judicial power – Chief Magistrate’s attachment of complainant’s property lacked legal authority. Sentencing – default imprisonment in lieu of fines must conform to statutory scale under the Magistrates’ Court Act.
|
31 May 1995 |
|
|
12 May 1995 |
| March 1995 |
|
|
|
17 March 1995 |
|
|
6 March 1995 |
|
A grant of Probate/Administration vests exclusive representative authority in the grantee; others are barred from suing on the estate.
Succession law – Representative standing – Effect of grant of Probate/Letters of Administration – Only grantee may act for deceased until recall/revocation (s.264 Succession Act). Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – Competency of plaintiff to sue in respect of estate property. Registration of Titles – Estate land severance and the role of the Administrator General in actions affecting estate land.
|
6 March 1995 |
|
A succession certificate does not authorise litigation where Probate/Administration has been granted to the Administrator General.
Succession law – representative capacity to sue; Probate/Letters of Administration vs succession certificate; s.264 Succession Act bars others from suing as representative; effect of Registration of Titles Act entry; limitation defence raised but matter determined on representative capacity.
|
6 March 1995 |
|
Plaintiff proved unpaid supply of petroleum; defendant’s unproven set-off failed; judgment for principal with court-rate interest.
Civil debt – sale of goods (petroleum) – proof of indebtedness – admission in writing supports plaintiff’s claim. Set-off – burden of proof – defendant failed to prove alleged loss from defective equipment. Interest – claimant’s contractual or claimed high rate must be justified; court may award statutory/court rate instead. Costs – unspecified attendant/financial costs not allowed without proof.
|
6 March 1995 |
|
Plaintiff awarded damages after court finds driver’s negligence caused pedestrian injuries.
Tort—Road traffic accident; negligence—duty of care and breach by speeding/loss of control; causation—linking driver’s negligence to pedestrian injuries; quantum—assessment of general damages.
|
3 March 1995 |
| February 1995 |
|
|
Revision refused where appeal lay and no record showed accused was of unsound mind when he pleaded guilty.
Criminal procedure – Revision v appeal – s.341(5) Criminal Procedure Code bars revision at instance of a party who could have appealed; Magistrate’s Court Act s.111 procedure for accused of unsound mind; plea of guilty and admitted facts suffice absent contemporaneous indication of incapacity.
|
28 February 1995 |
|
|
28 February 1995 |
| January 1995 |
|
|
|
31 January 1995 |
|
|
24 January 1995 |
|
Court has jurisdiction to set aside arbitration awards and may admit supplementary affidavits with leave.
Arbitration — Setting aside arbitral awards — High Court jurisdiction to entertain challenges despite clauses asserting finality of award — statutory grounds (misconduct, improperly procured) for setting aside. Civil procedure — Supplementary affidavits — Leave of court required; court may admit on exercise of inherent/statutory powers to do justice. Practice — Advocates and registries should file and lodge affidavits and pleadings in good time.
|
1 January 1995 |
| December 1994 |
|
|
|
5 December 1994 |
| November 1994 |
|
|
High Court finds military remand lawful; habeas corpus dismissed and it cannot order the military court to grant bail.
Habeas corpus — inquiry into lawfulness of detention under Judicature Act; return showing charges and remand by General Court Martial. Military jurisdiction — General Court Martial empowered to try service offences under NRA statute. Detention delays — statutory reporting and petition remedies (reports after 7 days, petition after 23 days, release after 90 days); detention under 90 days not automatically unlawful. Civilian interference — High Court cannot direct military court to grant bail.
|
15 November 1994 |
|
Writ of Habeas Corpus application dismissed due to lawful detention under General Court Martial jurisdiction.
Habeas Corpus - military detention - jurisdiction of military courts - procedural delay in charging detainee
|
15 November 1994 |