|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 1997 |
|
Contract Law|Breach of Contract
|
31 December 1997 |
| November 1997 |
|
|
Court struck out application to file memorandum of appeal out of time and ordered costs, finding delay due to counsel’s lack of diligence.
Civil procedure – extension of time – application for leave to file a memorandum of appeal out of time – service irregularity not fatal where respondent’s lawyers were served and present – delay due to counsel’s lack of diligence generally not sufficient cause – application struck out and costs ordered against advocate.
|
24 November 1997 |
|
Whether the Employment Decree's 12‑month probation limit applies to URA employees or URA's 24‑month policy prevails.
Employment law – probationary period – Employment Decree 1975 s.23(2) limits probation to 6 months extendable once to a maximum 12 months; later general statute (URA Statute 1991) does not implicitly repeal special earlier provision; statutory corporation not automatically a "government undertaking" for exemption; internal HR manuals are non‑statutory and cannot override mandatory statutory provisions.
|
7 November 1997 |
Contract Law|Labour and Employment Law|Termination of Employment
|
6 November 1997 |
| October 1997 |
|
|
Civil Procedure|Appeals and reviews
|
1 October 1997 |
|
A trial judge must consult parties before introducing new issues late; failure to do so that prejudices a party warrants setting aside judgment.
Civil procedure – Framing and amendment of issues – Trial court’s powers under Order 13 R.1(5) and R.5(1) – Duty to consult parties before adding issues – Late introduction of issues in judgment prejudicial and may vitiate decision.
|
1 October 1997 |
| September 1997 |
|
|
|
9 September 1997 |
| August 1997 |
|
|
|
23 August 1997 |
|
|
8 August 1997 |
|
|
8 August 1997 |
|
|
7 August 1997 |
|
Supreme Court allowed leave to file Notice and Record of Appeal out of time where delay from change/shortcomings of counsel was adequately explained.
Civil procedure — Appeal — Enlargement of time/leave to file Notice of Appeal and Record out of time — Change of advocates and alleged negligence or disciplinary impediments — Duty to show due diligence — Supreme Court’s discretionary jurisdiction to grant extension rather than require prior application to High Court.
|
6 August 1997 |
| July 1997 |
|
|
|
25 July 1997 |
|
|
25 July 1997 |
|
Criminal law|Evidence Law
|
18 July 1997 |
|
A government-owned company was validly incorporated; control by the State does not automatically make the State liable for company debts.
Company law – incorporation – Salomon principle – subscribers who are government ministers and sole state ownership do not negate separate corporate personality; lifting corporate veil only on statutory authority or clear fraud; estoppel must be pleaded – unpleaded estoppel will not defeat claim; claims against state-owned company’s debts must be proved in liquidation.
|
10 July 1997 |
|
|
9 July 1997 |
| April 1997 |
|
Liability of Company Directors
|
14 April 1997 |
|
Court may remit or set aside an arbitral award under ss.11–12 of the Arbitration Act; awards are not necessarily final.
Arbitration — Arbitration Act s.11 and s.12 — Court’s power to remit award for reconsideration and to set aside awards where arbitrator misconducted himself or arbitration improperly procured — Arbitral award not necessarily final and conclusive — Judicial intervention permissible in interests of justice.
|
14 April 1997 |
|
|
11 April 1997 |
|
Whether Uganda applies the English matrimonial law as at reception (1904) or as updated, and effect on the three‑year petition rule.
• Interpretation of "law applied in matrimonial proceedings in the High Court of Justice in England" under section 4 of the Divorce Act – reception date versus continuing reference to English law.
• Application and qualification of imported English law under section 3(2) and 3(3) of the Judicature Act, 1967.
• Effect of subsequent English matrimonial statutes on Ugandan divorce jurisdiction and procedure.
• Procedural requirement as to time of presenting a petition for divorce and necessity of leave of the court.
|
11 April 1997 |
|
Order for security for costs upheld where appellant abroad failed to prove substantial fixed assets in Uganda.
* Civil procedure – Security for costs – Plaintiff resident abroad – prima facie requirement for security unless substantial fixed assets in jurisdiction shown.
* Property – Speculative inheritance from unadministered estate does not constitute fixed, available assets for resisting security orders.
* Discretionary relief – Court may consider merits/prospects of success when ordering security for costs.
* Abuse of process – Mere poverty does not make security order oppressive; courts must guard against oppressive use but may still order security.
* Foreign judgments – Reciprocal enforcement requires statutory designation; absence of evidence of designation or foreign assets does not avoid security.
|
11 April 1997 |
|
|
8 April 1997 |
|
|
7 April 1997 |
|
|
3 April 1997 |
|
Trial court’s discretion on pleadings, adjournments and evidence upheld; respondent awarded contract price and interest from filing date.
Civil procedure — amendment of pleadings — misnomer and corrective amendments — leave to amend and consequences — discretion exercised by trial judge. Civil procedure — adjournments and framing of issues — court’s discretion and sufficiency of cause. Evidence — pleadings govern scope of admissible evidence — exclusion of evidence beyond pleadings and refusal to allow late amendment. Contract — construction contracts — substantial performance entitling recovery of contract price despite defects. Contract — extensions of time and consultant decisions affecting penalty for delay. Interest — awarding interest from date of filing suit under court’s discretion and Civil Procedure Act.
|
3 April 1997 |
| March 1997 |
|
|
|
21 March 1997 |
| February 1997 |
|
|
|
21 February 1997 |
|
Appellate judge erred by treating a leave-to-defend affidavit as evidence and by wrongly applying s.90; acceptance of supplied goods required payment.
Appeal — first appellate court’s duty to reappraise evidence; Summary procedure — affidavit for leave to appear not substantive evidence unless introduced; Evidence Act s.90 inapplicable where contract is oral; Acceptance of goods — alteration after delivery constitutes acceptance and duty to pay.
|
5 February 1997 |
|
Contract Law|Performance of contract
|
4 February 1997 |
| January 1997 |
|
|
|
29 January 1997 |
