|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| June 2019 |
|
|
State vicariously liable for police killing in custody; applicant awarded UGX 25,000,000 compensation.
Police custody death; vicarious liability of State for police acts performed in course of employment; violation of right to life and prohibition of torture; damages and interest awarded.
|
28 June 2019 |
|
Detention beyond the 48‑hour constitutional limit constituted false imprisonment; damages and interest awarded to the plaintiff.
Constitutional and civil liability – False imprisonment – detention beyond mandatory 48 hours – complainant bank’s role versus police responsibility – awards of general and exemplary damages and interest.
|
28 June 2019 |
|
Decision refusing to shortlist applicant was quashed for breach of natural justice; no review for panel composition absent bias.
Judicial review – public bodies – procedural impropriety – natural justice and right to fair hearing – appeal decided without hearing – certiorari to quash procedural unfair decision; interview panel composition not reviewable absent bias or statutory breach; time limits for challenging administrative decisions.
|
28 June 2019 |
|
State held vicariously liable for police killing in custody and ordered to pay compensation.
* Police law – Death in custody – State vicariously liable for wrongful acts of police committed while effecting an arrest.
* Tort – Vicarious liability – Employer liable for employees’ wrongful, even criminal, acts done in the course of employment.
* Constitutional law – Right to life and prohibition of torture – breach attracts compensation for unlawful deprivation of life.
|
28 June 2019 |
|
State held vicariously liable and ordered to pay compensation for a detainee’s unlawful death in police custody.
* Human rights – Right to life and protection from torture – unlawful death in police custody.
* Vicarious liability – State liability for wrongful acts of police committed in the course of effecting arrests.
* Remedies – compensation for arbitrary and unlawful deprivation of life; award of costs.
|
28 June 2019 |
|
Appellant failed to prove agency or electrical cause; tribunal's finding of no liability for the distributor upheld.
Electricity/distribution liability – Distributor not liable for independent contractor workmanship absent proven agency; Evidence – expert/police reports must state basis for opinion to be reliable; Eyewitness testimony insufficient where witnesses did not observe cause; Appeal – first appellate court may reappraise and weigh conflicting evidence.
|
28 June 2019 |
|
Respondent found in contempt for selling an impounded vehicle; fined UGX 20,000,000 and vehicle ordered returned.
Contempt of court – civil contempt for disobedience of court order – elements: existence of lawful order, knowledge, non-compliance – sale of impounded property – sanction: fine and return/impoundment of property – enforcement of rule of law.
|
28 June 2019 |
|
Registered owner may review interim orders and obtain release of vehicle attached in execution against a third party.
Civil procedure – Review of interim orders – Locus standi of registered owner not party to underlying proceedings – Attachment of property in execution of tax warrant requires a close nexus to defaulting taxpayer – High Court powers under s.33 Judicature Act to grant relief.
|
27 June 2019 |
|
Registered proprietor entitled to review and immediate release of vehicle wrongfully attached in execution against a third party.
* Civil procedure – Review of interlocutory orders – exercise of powers under section 33 Judicature Act.
* Property rights – attachment in execution – requirement of nexus between attached property and taxpayer.
* Locus standi – registered proprietor’s right to seek release of wrongfully attached property.
* Res judicata and abuse of process – inapplicable where main matter not finally determined.
|
27 June 2019 |
|
Applicant not entitled to closed in-house pension; HR must verify/pay DAP/University shortfalls; respondent fined for contempt.
Administrative law — Judicial review — Illegality, procedural impropriety and remedies (mandamus, certiorari, prohibition) — Retirement benefits — Qualification under closed in-house retirement scheme (IHRBS) — Deposit Administration Plan (DAP) and University retirement scheme — Verification and payment of unpaid benefits — Contempt for breaching court-ordered status quo — Repatriation obligations under HR Manual.
|
27 June 2019 |
|
Accused No.3 convicted of murder and attempted murder; co-accused acquitted due to unreliable identification and reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – murder – elements: death, unlawfulness, malice aforethought – proof beyond reasonable doubt. * Identification evidence – visual and voice identification – need for caution and corroboration; single identification witness requires corroboration. * Alibi – capacity to raise reasonable doubt. * Attempted murder – overt act, deadly weapon, intention inferred from context. * Circumstantial evidence – prior threats and physical evidence as corroboration.
|
26 June 2019 |
|
A truthful notice that an individual is no longer authorised to act for an employer is not defamatory absent proof of malice.
Defamation — publication that an individual is no longer employed/authorised to act; defence of justification (truth); absence of malice; employer’s interest in informing public.
|
21 June 2019 |
|
A truthful, non‑malicious notice of terminated employment is not defamatory when published to protect employer’s interests.
Defamation — libel — employer’s public notice of ceased employment — defence of justification (truth) — absence of malice — reasonableness of informing public where employee held public-facing position.
|
21 June 2019 |
|
Court quashed Custodian Board’s 2018 allocation as illegal, irrational and procedurally improper; repossession letter upheld as effective.
Administrative law – Judicial review – Illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety; Repossession under Expropriated Properties Act – ministerial repossession letter as effective certificate; Ultra vires allocation by custodial body; Remedy – certiorari to quash allocation; Damages not awarded in judicial review without proof.
|
21 June 2019 |
|
Court quashed respondent’s allocation of land already repossessed by the applicant as illegal, irrational and procedurally improper.
* Administrative law – Judicial review – illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety – quashing ultra vires allocation of repossessed land.
* Property law – Expropriated Properties Act – ministerial repossession letter as effective repossession certificate (substance over form).
* Natural justice – right to a hearing before administrative deprivation of proprietary interests.
* Remedies – certiorari available; damages not awarded absent proof; costs awarded.
|
21 June 2019 |
|
Chairperson lacked authority to sue; Auditor General lawfully may audit public funds granted to the cooperative.
* Cooperative societies – capacity to sue – institutional authority required; chairperson cannot sue without board resolution.
* Public finance audit – Auditor General’s constitutional and statutory mandate to audit public funds disbursed to private organisations (National Audit Act 2008; Articles 154, 163).
* Judicial review – applicant must prove illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety to restrain a constitutional audit.
* Costs – unauthorized institution of proceedings may attract personal costs liability.
|
21 June 2019 |
|
Inter‑country adoption granted after petitioner met statutory requirements and adoption was found to be in the children’s best interests.
Children law – Inter‑country adoption – Eligibility under section 46 (residence, foster period, criminal record, home‑study, recognition) – Parental consent dispensed where parents mentally incapacitated – Welfare principle (section 3, First Schedule) paramount – Adoption granted and registration ordered.
|
18 June 2019 |
|
Minister's post‑order non‑compliance amounted to contempt; belated appeal/stay does not excuse disobedience.
Contempt of court – failure to comply with mandamus – appeal or stay filed after compliance deadline does not purge contempt – ministerial liability in official capacity – remedies: fine and back pay; imprisonment declined.
|
17 June 2019 |
|
Failure by the Minister to implement a mandamus order constituted contempt; court fined the respondent and awarded back entitlements.
* Judicial review orders – compliance – contempt of court for failure to implement mandamus ordered by court.
* Contempt – elements: existence of lawful order, knowledge of order, disobedience – appeal or belated stay application does not purge contempt.
* Remedies for civil contempt – fines and payment of entitlements; committal to civil prison discretionary and may be declined.
* Ministerial duty – ministers subject to obligation to obey court orders and uphold rule of law.
|
17 June 2019 |
|
A minister's failure to comply with a court order constituted contempt; appeal/stay filings did not excuse non-compliance.
Contempt of court – failure to comply with mandatory court order – knowledge and non-compliance – appeal or stay application does not purge prior contempt – ministerial obligation – sanctions: fine and payment of arrears – protection of rule of law.
|
17 June 2019 |
|
Minister held in contempt for failing to implement a mandamus; fined and ordered to pay the applicant’s back entitlements.
Judicial review — mandamus — contempt of court for failure to implement mandamus — appeal or stay filed after compliance deadline not a defence — remedies: fine, payment of entitlements, costs; imprisonment declined.
|
17 June 2019 |
|
Court upholds lawful registered title, cancels fraudulently obtained certificates and dismisses plaintiffs’ time‑barred claims.
Succession and intestacy – letters of administration – validity of administrators’ grant and transfers; Registration of Titles – indefeasibility of registered title; fraud and forgery – cancellation of certificates obtained by fraud; limitation and laches – delay in challenging administration; remedies – cancellation of fraudulently obtained titles and re‑registration.
|
14 June 2019 |
|
Statutory demand set aside because the claimed debt was disputed, unascertained and raised triable issues.
Insolvency law – statutory demand – requirement of an ascertained debt – disputed debt raising triable issues – statutory demand set aside; contractual dispute-resolution (mediation/arbitration) – insolvency proceedings not a substitute for debt collection.
|
14 June 2019 |
|
Applicant’s alleged counsel mistake and delay did not justify setting aside an Order 17(4) ex parte proceeding; application dismissed.
Civil procedure – Order 17 r 4 (court may decide suit where a party granted time fails to produce evidence) – ex parte proceedings; Setting aside orders – requirement to show sufficient cause and prompt application; Mistake of counsel – when a counsel’s error does not amount to sufficient cause; Delay – inordinate/unexplained delay fatal to application.
|
14 June 2019 |
|
Failure to show sufficient cause or justify delay for non-attendance under Order 17 r.4 led to dismissal of set-aside application.
* Civil procedure – Order 17 r.4 – Court proceeding where a party granted time fails to produce evidence or witnesses – Such proceedings not set aside; remedy is by appeal after final determination. * Sufficient cause – Mistake of counsel or misinformation – burden to show credible excuse and prompt application; unexplained delay defeats relief. * Setting aside – requirement to demonstrate intention to proceed and proper steps taken, not merely cosmetic attendance.
|
14 June 2019 |
|
Search committee's submission of a sole candidate fettered Senate discretion; appointment quashed and proper process ordered.
Administrative law – Judicial review – Illegality and fettering of discretion – Search committee forwarding sole candidate – University Senate and Council rubber‑stamping – Certiorari to quash appointment – Mandamus to re‑conduct appointment process.
|
14 June 2019 |
|
Search Committee overstepped its mandate by forwarding a sole candidate, fettering Senate’s discretion; appointment quashed and remitted for proper process.
* Administrative law – Judicial review: review of decision-making process, abuse of discretion (illegality), and fettering of statutory discretion.
* University appointments – Search Committee’s mandate: requirement to propose up to five suitable candidates; impermissibility of forwarding a sole candidate and thereby usurping Senate’s statutory function.
* Remedies – Certiorari to quash ultra vires appointment; Mandamus to compel lawful appointment process; damages not awarded in absence of actionable tort.
|
14 June 2019 |
|
Mandamus granted to compel swearing‑in of elected workers’ councillors; back pay, damages, costs and daily fine ordered.
Administrative law – judicial review – failure to perform statutory duty; mandamus to compel swearing‑in; ultra vires and abuse of authority; entitlement to back emoluments, damages and costs; punitive daily fine for continued non‑compliance.
|
14 June 2019 |
|
A public official’s prolonged omission to perform a statutory swearing-in duty is ultra vires; mandamus and damages are appropriate.
* Administrative law – Judicial review – scope: illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety – public bodies subject to supervisory jurisdiction. * Administrative law – Mandamus – compulsion to perform statutory duty to swear elected representatives. * Public law – Failure or omission by chair/official to include administration of oath constitutes ultra vires and abuse of authority. * Remedies – mandamus, damages for delay, punitive daily fines, and costs.
|
14 June 2019 |
|
Disconnection and yaka deductions for an alleged illegal connection were lawful; plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Electricity law; illegal connection and meter bypass; licensee powers under Electricity (Primary Grid Code) Regulations 2003 (reg 7.6.1, reg 15.5.1, Part 15.0); debt recovery from prepaid (yaka) accounts; lawfulness of disconnection.
|
11 June 2019 |
|
A creditor bound by an administration deed cannot enforce a judgment during valid administration; such execution is an abuse of process.
Insolvency law – administration and administration deed – binding effect on pre-deed creditors – section 164 Insolvency Act; provisional administrator – removal/challenge procedure under section 174 and Regulation 161; execution proceedings during administration – enforcement barred and abuse of process; setting aside garnishee obtained in breach of administration deed.
|
7 June 2019 |