|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| August 2019 |
|
|
Unauthorised placement of power lines without statutory notice was trespass and negligent; distributor held vicariously liable and ordered to pay general damages.
* Electricity law – s.67(1) and s.67(4) – statutory 60 days’ notice required before placing electric supply lines over private land.
* Tort – Trespass to land – unauthorized entry by licensee’s agents constitutes trespass; trespass actionable per se.
* Tort – Negligence – duty of care, foreseeability and breach where live wires placed above a dwelling.
* Vicarious liability – employer liable for servants’ torts committed in course of employment.
* Damages – special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved; general damages awarded for trespass/inconvenience.
|
28 August 2019 |
|
Trial judge mis‑evaluated evidence; land held to belong to the deceased mother's estate, not the respondent.
• Limitation — continuing trespass; cause of action may arise during continuance of wrongful occupation.
• Evidence — first appellate court's duty to re‑evaluate evidence on balance of probabilities; trial court must give reasons when preferring one version.
• Possession/Adverse possession — long uninterrupted occupation can create rights affecting ownership of unregistered land.
• Succession — land that belonged to deceased devolves into estate and must be shared by lawful beneficiaries.
• Locus in quo — visit lawful but its observations must be properly considered in judgment.
|
19 August 2019 |
|
Uncontroverted evidence of arrest, torture and detention by UPDF led to state vicarious liability and awards for general and exemplary damages.
• Constitutional and tort law – illegal arrest, detention and torture by military personnel – liability of the State.• Vicarious liability – State liable for wrongful acts of military agents acting within scope of employment.• Evidence – unchallenged witness evidence treated as admitted.• Damages – refusal of unproven special damages; award of general and exemplary damages with interest and costs.
|
19 August 2019 |
|
The plaintiff was unlawfully arrested and tortured by state agents, entitling him to constitutional redress and damages.
Constitutional law — arbitrary arrest and unlawful detention (Article 23); Prohibition of torture — absolute, non‑derogable right (Article 24) and Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act; Right to property (Article 26) — burden to prove possession and value; Remedies for constitutional breaches — Article 50(1) — redress includes compensatory and punitive damages; Limitation — no fixed statutory time bar for enforcement of constitutional rights.
|
19 August 2019 |
|
Application under Article 50 struck out for failure to allege any specific infringement of constitutional rights.
Constitutional procedure – Article 50 enforcement – public interest litigation requires specific allegation of infringement or threatened constitutional right; administrative decisions challenging recall/issuance of passports are more appropriately pursued by judicial review; passports as government property and regulatory powers to issue/recall; requirement for genuine public interest standing.
|
16 August 2019 |
|
Article 50 actions require specific constitutional right infringement allegations; vague public-interest challenges are incompetent.
Constitutional procedure – Article 50 enforcement – Article 50 requires specific allegation of infringement or threat to a constitutional right before court will entertain public interest litigation; Public interest standing – criteria for genuine public interest litigation and limits on broadened access; Administrative law – where no constitutional right is pleaded, challenge to administrative decision should proceed by judicial review; Passports – state ownership and power to issue/recall; Regional obligations – EAC/ICAO directives and domestication principles.
|
16 August 2019 |
|
Application under Article 50 struck out for failing to plead any specific infringement of constitutional rights; judicial review was the proper remedy.
Public interest litigation — Article 50 enforcement — requirement to plead specific infringement of constitutional rights; standing and genuine public-interest criteria; administrative decisions and appropriate remedy (judicial review)
|
16 August 2019 |
|
A university’s unjustified delay in issuing a degree certificate warranted mandamus, damages and a daily penalty.
* Administrative law – Judicial review of public bodies – mandamus to compel issuance of academic certificates.
* Administrative law – Legitimate expectation – students’ expectation to receive academic documents on graduation.
* Remedies – Award of general damages for nonfeasance/misfeasance by a public institution and daily penalty for continued delay.
* Public law – University’s statutory duty to issue degree certificates promptly.
|
16 August 2019 |
|
Telecommunications masts are movable chattels, not immovable property subject to local property rates under the Rating Act.
Local Government (Rating) Act 2005 – interpretation of "property" – ejusdem generis – immovable vs movable (degree and purpose of annexation) – telecom masts are movable chattels – tax statutes construed in favour of taxpayer – demand notices unlawful.
|
16 August 2019 |
|
Telecommunications masts are movable chattels and not subject to property rates under the Rating Act.
Property law – interpretation of "property" under Local Government (Rating) Act 2005; fixtures doctrine – degree and purpose of annexation; ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis; tax statutes construed in favour of taxpayer; quashing of property-rate demand notices for telecom masts.
|
16 August 2019 |
|
Telecommunications masts are movable chattels, not "property" under the Rating Act, so property-rate demands were unlawful.
Local Government (Rating) Act 2005 – definition of "property" – whether telecommunications masts are immovable property; Fixtures law – degree and purpose of annexation tests; Statutory interpretation – ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis; Tax/rating statutes – ambiguity resolved in favour of taxpayer; Judicial review – quashing unlawful demand notices.
|
16 August 2019 |
|
Judicial review unavailable where the dispute is essentially a private land dispute already before the court; raise public law issues in the earlier suit.
* Administrative law – Judicial review – availability to challenge decisions of public officials – focus on decision-making process (legality, irrationality, procedural impropriety). * Civil procedure – relation between public law remedies and private law actions – where private law dispute predominates and an earlier ordinary suit exists, public law issues should be ventilated in that suit. * Land law – competing title claims and appropriateness of prerogative orders seeking survey and title cancellation. * Alternative remedy/abuse of process – party with earlier-filed private suit must ordinarily pursue related public law issues within that suit.
|
16 August 2019 |
|
Consent withdrawal signed by counsel without client’s informed agreement can be set aside for mistake or misrepresentation.
Civil procedure – Review of consent judgments – Consent binding unless procured by illegality, fraud or mistake – Mistake or negligence of counsel can justify setting aside consent – Consensus ad idem required – Importance of immediate protest and rebuttal.
|
16 August 2019 |
|
A statutory demand against an individual is invalid without a judgment debt; disputed debts must be litigated, not enforced via insolvency.
Insolvency law – Statutory demand against an individual requires a judgment debt; insolvency proceedings enforce but do not establish disputed rights; statutory demand cannot be used as a debt-collection tool where triable issues exist; triable-issues test (Tan Eng Joo) applies.
|
16 August 2019 |
|
A statutory demand against an individual requires a judgment debt; a demand issued without judgment was set aside.
Insolvency Act — statutory demand against an individual must be for a judgment debt; insolvency proceedings enforce established rights not establish them; misuse of insolvency as debt‑collection; triable disputes warrant setting aside statutory demand.
|
16 August 2019 |
|
A statutory demand against an individual is improper absent a judgment debt; disputed debts must be litigated, not enforced by insolvency machinery.
Insolvency law – statutory demand against an individual requires a judgment debt – insolvency enforces, not establishes, rights – disputed liabilities must be litigated, not collected via statutory demand.
|
16 August 2019 |
|
Regulatory delay denied a fair hearing; tribunal’s jurisdiction upheld, damages increased, special damages not proved.
* Administrative law – electricity sector – jurisdiction of the Electricity Disputes Tribunal to determine licensing and fair hearing complaints.
* Administrative fairness – right to a fair and speedy hearing – delay and lack of effective notice vitiating administrative decision-making.
* Remedies – remitting matter to regulatory committee for fresh consideration and timeline orders.
* Damages – distinction between special and general damages; necessity of specific pleading and proof for special damages; appellate interference where award is manifestly inadequate.
* Licensing – failure to produce documents before regulator may preclude finding of substantive right-to-practice violation.
|
16 August 2019 |
|
The applicant failed to show a prima facie case or irreparable harm to justify an injunction halting the telecom mast.
* Civil procedure – Temporary injunction – Requirements: prima facie case, irreparable injury, balance of convenience.
* Environmental law – Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) – consultation requirements and regulatory approval.
* Administrative remedy – Cancellation of EIA approval under EIA Regulations as appropriate remedy for alleged defective consultation.
* Judicial discretion – Injunction an extraordinary remedy to be exercised cautiously.
|
16 August 2019 |
|
Review dismissed: alleged errors were disagreements with the judgment and should have been appealed.
Review — scope limited to errors apparent on the face of the record; Review is not a substitute for appeal; Affidavits must not be argumentative; Abuse of process — frivolous and vexatious review; Delay in filing review applications.
|
16 August 2019 |
|
An eight‑year delay and concurrent UHRC complaint rendered the constitutional claim time‑barred and an abuse of court process.
Human rights claims — limitation periods; Human Rights Commission Act five‑year limitation; Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 not yet in force; delay causing prejudice; abuse of court process for concurrent proceedings before UHRC.
|
16 August 2019 |
|
Court preserved students’ attendance by granting a temporary injunction pending the main suit, while striking the director from the suit.
Injunctions – interlocutory relief – three‑part test (prima facie case, irreparable harm, balance of convenience); procedural objections – suing public officer in personal capacity; curable affidavit defects; preservation of status quo for large affected student cohort; injunction not to bar fee collection; no costs awarded.
|
6 August 2019 |
|
Court granted interim protection preserving the MOU pending arbitration due to prima facie case and irreparable loss.
Arbitration - interim measures in aid of arbitration; temporary injunctions - prima facie case; irreparable injury; balance of convenience; contractual exclusivity; preservation of status quo pending arbitration.
|
5 August 2019 |
|
A non-party to an arbitration agreement cannot be joined to proceedings seeking interim relief affecting that arbitration.
* Arbitration — limited court intervention; Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act bars intervention except as provided. * Joinder — non-party to arbitration agreement cannot be joined to proceedings seeking interim relief arising from that arbitration. * Civil Procedure — Order 1 r.10(2) cannot be used to circumvent Arbitration Act restrictions on court intervention. * Interim measures — only parties (or those claiming through/under them) to arbitration agreement may obtain or be subject to court-ordered interim relief.
|
5 August 2019 |
|
Plaintiff shot by police; State held vicariously liable and ordered to pay compensatory, exemplary damages, interest and costs.
Tort — Negligence; Use of lethal force by police — unjustified shooting through gate; Res ipsa loquitur applicable where firearm under exclusive control of officer; Vicarious liability — State liable for police acts in course of duty; Damages — general, special, loss of earnings, exemplary, interest and costs awarded.
|
2 August 2019 |