|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2018 |
|
|
Appellant failed to prove customary title; respondent's possessory control prevailed and the suit was dismissed.
Land law – customary tenure: necessity to prove specific customary rules and acquisition in accordance therewith; Possession versus ownership – user and occupancy alone do not establish customary title; Prescription and abandonment – interruption of continuous possession by insurgency defeats acquisitive prescription; Locus in quo – court must not admit testimony from persons who did not testify in court; Appellate review – re-evaluation of facts and credibility and power to reverse erroneous factual findings.
|
25 October 2018 |
|
Appellate court re‑weighed conflicting evidence, found appellant established adverse occupation, set aside trial subdivision and granted ownership, possession, injunction and costs.
* Land law – customary tenure – ownership dispute – whether occupation was adverse or permissive; assessment on balance of probabilities. * Evidence – appellate re-evaluation of conflicting testimony; admissibility and weight of locus in quo evidence; effect of evidence from uncalled witness. * Boundaries – impermissibility of creating a new boundary absent evidential support. * Burden of proof – plaintiff's obligation to make version plausible by objective corroboration.
|
25 October 2018 |
|
An unregistered lease offer without survey or proof of customary rules does not establish ownership; appeal allowed.
Land law – lease offer lacking survey and description; registration required to convert offer to interest; tenancy at sufferance; customary tenure requires proof of customary rules and acquisition in accordance therewith; possessory rights vs ownership; locus in quo procedure and service; apparent bias test.
|
25 October 2018 |
|
Appellants’ long exclusive occupation constituted a gift and ownership; forced displacement did not amount to abandonment.
Land law – Customary tenure; gift inter vivos – requirements: donor’s intention, delivery and acceptance established by exclusive occupation and conduct; licence vs adverse possession; abandonment requires intent to relinquish – involuntary displacement (insurgency) not abandonment; locus in quo inspections limited to testing oral evidence; first-appeal re-hearing standard – appellate court may reassess inferences not based on witness demeanour.
|
25 October 2018 |
|
Revision refused: monument‑based land description controlled over conflicting acreage estimates; application dismissed for delay with costs.
Civil procedure — Revision under section 83 CPA — Alleged material irregularity where decree described land by monuments but not acreage — Monuments prevail over admeasurements — Locus in quo inspection and sketch map — Inordinate delay and finality of litigation — Application dismissed with costs.
|
25 October 2018 |
|
Appeal dismissed: oral parking agreement, ownership and theft established; employer liable for employee’s apparent authority, damages upheld.
Contract – oral parking agreement and payments; Property/possession – ownership despite logbook discrepancy; Tort/vicarious liability – employer liable for employee’s apparent authority; Evidence – credibility and minor inconsistencies not fatal; Quantum – valuation and general damages upheld.
|
19 October 2018 |
|
Applicant granted interlocutory injunction restraining respondent from attaching telecom masts pending trial due to irreparable public harm.
Civil procedure – Interlocutory injunction – requirements: prima facie case, irreparable injury, balance of convenience; Local Governments (Rating) Act 2005 – whether telecommunication masts are rateable property; statutory duty to collect rates vs. equitable interlocutory relief.
|
18 October 2018 |
|
The court addressed the impracticality of conducting meetings due to the death of a majority shareholder.
Company law – Extraordinary general meetings – Death of majority shareholder – Authority to change bank signatory
|
12 October 2018 |
|
Temporary injunction granted to preserve status quo in land ownership dispute pending main application resolution.
Land Law – Temporary Injunction – Prima Facie Case – Irreparable Harm – Balance of Convenience – Status Quo
|
12 October 2018 |
|
Appellate court upheld compensatory damages and 24% interest for wrongful electricity disconnection, dismissing the appeal.
* Civil damages – wrongful disconnection of electricity – compensatory general damages for loss of perishable stock, lost income and reputational harm.
* Appeal – interference with discretionary awards – appellate restraint unless misdirection, wrong principle, or wholly erroneous amount.
* Interest – just and reasonable rate to protect award against inflation and currency depreciation; commercial considerations.
|
12 October 2018 |
|
Applicant failed to show prima facie case or irreparable harm; ex parte leave and interim injunction denied, application dismissed with costs.
Judicial review – interim relief; ex parte leave – court will not exclude respondent who has shown interest; temporary injunctions – prima facie case, status quo, irreparable harm, balance of convenience; injunctions against public authorities and prosecutorial discretion – caution and public interest prevail.
|
11 October 2018 |
|
Court refused ex parte leave and denied injunction restraining prosecution, finding no prima facie case and public interest concerns.
* Judicial review and interim relief – application for ex parte leave and temporary injunction to restrain prosecution; * Injunctions against public authorities – approached with caution where prosecutorial discretion and public interest are engaged; * Requirements for interlocutory injunction – prima facie case, status quo, irreparable harm, balance of convenience; * Prosecutorial discretion – court reluctant to pre-empt DPP's function absent clear absence of evidence.
|
11 October 2018 |
|
The application for an interim stay of military court proceedings was dismissed due to lack of a substantive application and failure to establish a prima facie case.
Civil Procedure - Temporary and interim injunctions - Competency of application - Criminal law and fair trial rights.
|
11 October 2018 |
|
Whether a forcible eviction was lawful under the Rent Restriction Act and whether tenants proved loss from that eviction.
* Landlord & tenant – statutory tenancy and eviction – Rent Restriction Act requires court process for recovery; forcible eviction unlawful. * Ownership and tenancy – burden of proof and oral tenancy. * Damages – special damages require strict proof; theft by third parties may be a novus actus; general damages for wrongful eviction assessed by reference to rent and inconvenience. * Evidence – limits and safeguards when adopting witness statements in lieu of oral examination-in-chief.
|
11 October 2018 |
|
Judicial review was inappropriate for a private contractual land dispute; undue delay and factual issues warranted dismissal.
* Administrative law – Judicial review – scope and limits – distinction between public law decision-making and private/contractual rights arising from land allocation by District Land Boards.
* Judicial review – remedies (certiorari and prohibition) – appropriate where illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety in public decision-making is shown.
* Time limits and delay – Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules (3-month rule) and public interest in finality – undue delay bars relief.
* Procedure – allegations of fraud and disputed facts as to land identity require a full trial in private law, not determination by judicial review on affidavit.
|
11 October 2018 |
|
A claimant of communal customary land must plead the nature of communal rights and authority to sue or face striking out.
* Land law – communal customary tenure – recovery of land – plaintiff must plead nature of communal rights (collective, common or private) and authority to sue.
* Civil procedure – locus standi and cause of action – representative suits and requirements for suing on behalf of a community.
* Pleadings – essential particulars required in claims to enforce communal customary land rights.
|
11 October 2018 |
|
Appellants’ claim was a proprietary recovery of land barred by the 12-year limitation; appeal dismissed with costs.
* Limitation Act – recovery of land v. continuing trespass – proprietary actions for possession attract 12-year limitation (s.5); adverse possession and extinguishment of title (s.16).
* Civil procedure – appeals – grounds of appeal must be concise and specific (Order 43 CPR); overly general grounds struck out.
* Evidence – locus in quo – court may inspect but must not admit fresh testimony from persons who did not give oral evidence in court; improperly admitted evidence may be disregarded under s.166 Evidence Act.
|
11 October 2018 |
|
Applicant's general ground struck out; respondents' customary ownership upheld and appeal dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – Appeal grounds – requirements under Order 43 r (1) and (2) CPR; Procedure – scheduling conference – non-compliance not fatal absent miscarriage of justice; Evidence – standard of proof in civil land disputes; Possession and locus in quo – inspection as corroborative of long occupancy; Limitation/delay – laches and time-bar considerations in land claims.
|
11 October 2018 |
|
Appellant failed to prove title; respondent's occupation and conduct established ownership, so the appeal was dismissed with costs.
* Land law – ownership of unregistered land – distinction between license/temporary user and inter vivos gift; exclusive occupation as evidence of gift.
* Evidence – burden on balance of probabilities, credibility assessment, and weight of locus in quo inspection and objective corroborative features.
* Property – abandonment – involuntary absence due to insurgency does not prove intent to abandon proprietary rights.
* Judicial notice – regional insurgency and its impact on possession and occupation.
|
11 October 2018 |
|
Application to admit fresh documentary evidence on appeal dismissed for lack of newness, diligence, relevance and undue delay.
Appeal — Admission of additional evidence — Principles from Ladd v Marshall — Requirements: newly discovered despite due diligence; relevance to issues on appeal; credibility; probable influence on outcome; no undue delay — Evidence that introduces new matter not arising from trial record will ordinarily be refused — Finality of litigation vs. exceptional justice.
|
11 October 2018 |
|
Appeal allowed: unproved mediation admission disregarded; indebtedness established on signed invoices reduced to UGX 7,663,000.
Civil procedure – Summary suit – burden of proof on plaintiff to prove goods were ordered, supplied and received – invoices and signed delivery acknowledgements as evidence; mediation admissions – cannot be relied on without proof; accounting documents – bank statements must specifically identify payments to discharge alleged debt.
|
10 October 2018 |
|
Defendant held liable for negligent overtaking; plaintiff awarded proven special and general damages, interest and costs.
Road traffic accident – negligent overtaking and failure to stop – breach of s.125 Road Traffic and Safety Act; civil liability despite absence of criminal conviction; vicarious liability for employer where driver acted in course of employment; estoppel from denying ownership after participating in settlement and withholding ownership particulars; proof and assessment of special and general damages; interest and costs.
|
5 October 2018 |
|
A litigant should not be ordered to pay costs caused by counsel’s error without the advocate being given an opportunity to be heard.
Costs – party condemned to pay costs for counsel's error – advocate may be ordered to pay personally for negligent or abusive conduct but must be heard before such order – litigant not to bear counsel’s mistakes absent litigant misconduct.
|
5 October 2018 |
|
|
5 October 2018 |
|
Court dismisses application for return of firearm due to procedural flaws and ongoing misuse allegations.
Firearms Act – procedures for possession and revocation – police discretion in firearm licensing – procedural deficiency in application
|
5 October 2018 |
|
Application for return of licensed firearm dismissed for wrong procedure and because firearm remained under investigation and licensing discretion was proper.
Firearms Act – procedural exclusivity for licensing and confiscation disputes; Licensing discretion – suspension/revocation under s.5; Burden of proof in firearms prosecutions (s.40); Judicial review limits on administrative discretion.
|
5 October 2018 |
|
|
5 October 2018 |
|
Missing locus in quo proceedings made the record insufficient, so a retrial was ordered to resolve the customary land dispute.
Land law – Customary clan land v. individual ownership – Role and evidential weight of locus in quo visits – Missing proceedings on appeal – When retrial required; Civil procedure – Grounds of appeal must be concise and specific (Order 43 r (1) & (2)); Probate – Effect of unchallenged letters of administration in land disputes.
|
4 October 2018 |
|
Whether an unaccepted lease offer and tenancy at sufferance confer proprietary title over former public land.
Evidence Act s.92 – written instrument cannot be contradicted by oral evidence; Public Lands Rules/expired lease offers – offeree is tenant at sufferance with no proprietary interest until registration; Customary tenure – must be proved by evidence of applicable customary rules; Possession vs title – possession is good against the world except a person with a superior title; Missing locus in quo record – appeal may proceed when remaining record suffices.
|
4 October 2018 |
|
Appellate court affirmed possession-based land judgment despite locus in quo procedural irregularities, finding no miscarriage of justice.
Land law – customary tenure – long occupation and visible developments as evidence of ownership; Civil procedure – ex parte proceedings and notice; Evidence – locus in quo visits limited to inspection, court should not summon witnesses suo motu; Procedural irregularity and miscarriage of justice standard; Appellate re-hearing and re-appraisal of evidence.
|
4 October 2018 |
|
Court set aside procedural dismissals and reinstated the land appeal to be decided on its merits.
Civil procedure – dismissal for want of prosecution – whether counsel's failure to file submissions or attend justifies dismissal – litigant should not be penalised for counsel's lapses; Leave to appeal – application must first be made to the court which made the order and granted where prima facie grounds exist; High Court discretion – set aside procedural orders and reinstate appeal to decide merits under Article 126(2)(e).
|
4 October 2018 |
|
The court quashed the Permanent Secretary’s refusal and held estates of deceased former presidents entitled to parliamentary allowances under section 3.
* Administrative law – Judicial review – legality of administrative decision – reliance on Attorney General/Solicitor General opinion.* Statutory interpretation – Parliament (Remuneration of Members) Act s.3 – scope of “former holder of the office of President” and whether entitlement is restricted to living persons.* Emoluments – whether allowances payable under s.3 pass to estates of deceased former presidents.* Remedies – certiorari to quash decision, mandamus to compel payment, declaration of entitlement, interest and costs.
|
1 October 2018 |
|
Court ruled that estates of former presidents entitled to allowances, rejecting misinterpretation limiting to living ex-leaders.
Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Legality of Decision – Remuneration of Former Presidents – Interpretation of Statute
|
1 October 2018 |
| September 2018 |
|
|
Applicant must show a clear personal nexus before suing individual officials for alleged human-rights violations; AG otherwise remains proper party.
* Constitutional and civil procedure – Proper defendant for official acts – Attorney General and Government Proceedings Act – whether constitutional/statutory provisions bar suits against individuals for human-rights violations.
* Human rights – Personal-capacity liability – requirement to establish a clear nexus showing individuals acted in their personal (not official) capacity.
* Preliminary objections – striking parties – when individual respondents may be struck from proceedings pending demonstration of personal nexus.
* Judicial discretion – court may later pierce the official veil and hold individuals personally liable if evidence supports personal liability.
|
28 September 2018 |
|
Refusal to release pre-entry exam scripts lawful; pre-entry examination is a valid, statutory admission criterion; application dismissed.
Administrative law; judicial review confined to decision-making process; no right to pre-entry exam scripts or marking scheme; Advocates Act authorises pre-entry examination as admission criterion; Law Development Centre wrongly joined as party; refusal to disclose scripts lawful; court will not substitute its view for statutory admissions function.
|
25 September 2018 |
|
Court permits holding of an Extraordinary General Meeting amidst quorum challenges due to shareholder's death.
Company law - Impracticability in calling company meetings - Court's power to order meetings - Change in shareholding due to shareholder death.
|
25 September 2018 |
|
Court orders provisional administration to protect Sunshine Agro Products from creditor enforcement and potential liquidation.
Insolvency Law - Provisional Administration - Appointment of Provisional Administrator - Protection of company assets and creditor interests.
|
25 September 2018 |
|
|
19 September 2018 |
|
An appeal filed without required leave was incompetent and struck out; advocate’s affidavit did not breach conduct rules.
Appeal procedure — Order 44 CPR governs appeals as of right; Order 6 r.30 CPR (strike-out) is limited to orders attacking absence of cause of action; appeals filed without required leave are incompetent. Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations — Regulation 9 does not bar affidavits limited to legal submissions and record facts.
|
19 September 2018 |
|
Employee continued by conduct; dismissal without statutorily required hearing/proof was unfair, award of damages and costs.
Employment law – employment by conduct and legitimate expectation of renewal – procedural safeguards before dismissal (Employment Act ss.65, 66, 68, 71) – employer's burden to prove reasons for dismissal – unfair termination – remedies: compensation, interest and costs; exemplary damages declined.
|
17 September 2018 |
|
Court orders foreign respondent to deposit security to prevent evasion and ensure satisfaction of potential judgment.
Civil procedure - attachment before judgment - necessity for security deposit in case of potential evasion by foreign respondent.
|
14 September 2018 |
|
Court ordered pre-judgment security after applicant showed reasonable cause that respondents might abscond or dissipate assets.
Civil procedure – Attachment/arrest before judgment – Section 64 Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 CPR – requirement of clear proof of risk of absconding or dissipation of assets – interlocutory security to preserve ends of justice.
|
14 September 2018 |
|
Plaint challenging judicial decision and advocates’ courtroom conduct barred by judicial and advocate immunities; plaint struck out with costs.
Judicial immunity – Article 128(4) and s.46(1) Judicature Act – acts done in exercise of judicial power; Advocate’s immunity – common-law litigation immunity and absolute privilege for statements in judicial proceedings; Pleading standard – whether plaint discloses cause of action; Civil Procedure – Order 7 r.11(d) rejection of plaint barred by law; Remedies – appeal, Judicial Service Commission, contempt, professional disciplinary bodies.
|
13 September 2018 |
|
The Town Clerk lawfully interdicted the applicant; transfer complaints were unfounded or premature and the application dismissed.
* Administrative law – Interdiction – power of Town Clerk under Public Service and Education Service Regulations; not ultra vires. * Interdiction vs suspension – interdiction is precautionary and does not attract full hearing; natural justice engaged at disciplinary stage. * Judicial review – premature intervention avoided where disciplinary process pending and no exceptional prejudice shown. * Transfers and postings – decision must be rational and in public interest; consultation requirement with school bodies held directory not mandatory.
|
13 September 2018 |
|
|
12 September 2018 |
|
Discretionary refusal to renew a fixed-term contract based on unsatisfactory appraisals is not subject to judicial review as illegitimate expectation.
Administrative law – Judicial review – Legitimate expectation – Discretionary renewal of fixed-term employment contracts – Procedural fairness – Reliance on performance appraisals and warning letters.
|
10 September 2018 |
|
Claim for ticket refunds dismissed due to inconsistent evidence and ticket terms limiting liability and requiring arbitration.
Contract formation – ticket purchase subject to terms and conditions; arbitration clause and liability exclusions; credibility of witness evidence; improper High Court venue for low-value claim; claim dismissed for failure to prove contract.
|
7 September 2018 |
|
Whether a pre‑Land Act sale was void for lack of spousal consent or vendor insanity.
Civil appeal — amendment of memorandum of appeal — leave required under Order 43 Rule 2; appeal time computation; Land law — spousal consent under s.39(1)(c)(i) Land Act non‑retrospective; capacity to contract — evidence of insanity must be contemporaneous and raised timely; evaluation of credibility and possession evidence.
|
7 September 2018 |
|
Extension of time to appeal granted where applicant promptly acted after learning of ex parte decree; appeal to be filed and fixed promptly.
Civil procedure – Extension of time to appeal – requirement of "good cause"; balancing access to justice and finality of litigation; appeals from ex parte decrees under s.67(1) Civil Procedure Act; mistakes of counsel not necessarily visited on litigant; discretion to grant extension with conditions to expedite finality.
|
6 September 2018 |
|
Court granted extension to file judicial review due to advocate's inadvertent error, imposing strict filing and hearing timetable and awarding costs to respondent.
* Administrative law – judicial review – extension of time under Rule 5(1) – discretionary relief where there is "good reason".
* Civil procedure – enlargement of time – mistakes of counsel – distinction between negligence and error of judgment – when negligence should not be visited on litigant.
* Balance between access to justice and finality of administrative action – prejudice and arguability as considerations.
* Conditions may be imposed when granting extension to protect public administration.
|
6 September 2018 |