Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search
background image
profile image

Supreme Court of Uganda

The Supreme Court of Uganda is the highest judicial organ in Uganda. It derives powers from Article 130 of the 1995 constitution. It is primarily an appellate court with original jurisdiction in only one type of case: a presidential election petition.

The Supreme Court is headed by the chief justice nd has ten other justices. The quorum required for a court decision varies depending on the type of case under consideration. When hearing a constitutional appeal, the required quorum is seven justices. In a criminal or a civil appeal, only five justices are required for a quorum.

 

Physical address
Plot M105, Kinawataka Road, Mbuya 1, Kampala, Uganda
Visit website
http://www.judiciary.go.ug/data/smenu/7/Supreme
10 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
10 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
May 1995
Pike v Kalema (Civil Application 6 of 1995) [1995] UGSC 30 (19 May 1995)

 

 19 May 1995
Sadrudin Dhamji Sayani v Mpresse Nsubuga (Civil Application 10 of 1995) [1995] UGSC 34 (11 May 1995)
Applicant failed to show sufficient reason to extend time to file a notice of appeal; application dismissed with costs.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – application under Rule 4/Order 48 to file notice of appeal out of time – requirement to show sufficient reason; advocate’s oversight as possible but not automatic justification; likelihood of success not itself sufficient.
 11 May 1995
Uganda Development Bank v MS Kasirye , Byaruhanga and Company Advocates (Civil Appeal 35 of 94) [1995] UGSC 37 (9 May 1995)
Regulation 8 does not automatically invalidate affidavits by counsel; striking-out was wrongful and matters remitted for rehearing.
* Advocates — Professional Conduct — Regulation 8 — Advocate acting as counsel and witness — formal/non-contentious exception — remedial approach when roles overlap. * Civil procedure — Taxation of costs (Appeals and References) Rules — Rule 3 affidavits setting out grounds of appeal — interaction with Regulation 8. * Evidence — Admissibility of affidavits sworn by counsel — record of proceedings as primary source — appropriate remedy is role separation or calling other evidence, not automatic striking out. * Procedure — Remittal for rehearing where High Court wrongly struck out appeal and motion.
 9 May 1995
Gabula Bright Africa v Uganda [1995] UGSC 15 (5 May 1995)
Conviction upheld on one treasonous overt act; key witness was a government spy and overt act 19 was not proved.
* Criminal law – Treason – Proof of overt acts – Need to prove accused’s words or acts at meetings discussing overthrow, not merely attendance or subsequent conduct. * Evidence – Agent provocateur/government spy – such a witness is not an accomplice and need not be corroborated. * Evidence – Admissibility – trial within a trial under section 80(2) valid where admissibility of a challenged statement is in issue. * Documentary evidence – Exhibits P.24 and P.25 found to be treasonable and attributable to the accused.
 5 May 1995
Mwebaze v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 28 of 1993) [1995] UGSC 33 (5 May 1995)

 

 5 May 1995
Sam Ekolu v Uganda [1995] UGSC 7 (5 May 1995)
Criminal law
 5 May 1995
Sekinyomo and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 26 of 1993) [1995] UGSC 24 (5 May 1995)
Possession of recently stolen items and connected circumstantial evidence justified inference of participation in aggravated robbery; appeals dismissed.
* Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – Sufficiency of evidence – Recent possession of stolen property and circumstantial facts may support inference of participation in robbery. * Criminal law – Alibi – Credibility of alibi assessed against immediate post-offence conduct and recovered property. * Criminal law – Receiving/retaining stolen property – Where possession is closely connected in time and circumstances to the theft, conviction for the theft/robbery may be justified.
 5 May 1995
Mica v Walakira (CIVIL APPEAL 21/1994) [1995] UGSC 42 (3 May 1995)
Section 35 applications, not fresh suits, are the proper route to challenge wrongful or excessive execution; decree‑holders must be joined where they directed attachment.
Civil procedure — Execution — Section 35, Civil Procedure Act — Application under section 35 appropriate to challenge wrongful/excessive execution and to obtain relief without a fresh suit; section 35(2) permits treating proceedings as a suit. Joinder — Decree‑holder who initiates execution and points out property is a proper party to execution proceedings; Court Bailiff may in some cases be sued separately. Appellate procedure — Service of notice of appeal on persons directly affected is mandatory in principle.
 3 May 1995
Mutyaba Leonard Sembatya v Attorney General [1995] UGSC 8 (3 May 1995)
3 May 1995
Re:M(an infant) [1995] UGSC 16 (3 May 1995)
Applicants working abroad with a permanent Ugandan home qualify as residents for adoption; child’s welfare paramount.
Adoption law – Interpretation of "resident" in s.4(5) Adoption of Children Act – constructive/dual residence – purposive construction – best interests of the child paramount.
 3 May 1995