|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 1999 |
|
|
|
8 December 1999 |
| November 1999 |
|
|
Applicant granted leave to renew an expired Notice of Appeal due to former counsel’s negligence; costs awarded to respondent.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – leave to file Notice of Appeal and institute appeal out of time – sufficient cause where delay attributable to former counsel’s negligence. * Principle that a vigilant litigant should not be penalised for advocate’s default – exercise of court’s discretion. * Applicant not required at this stage to disclose grounds or prospects of success for extension; court balances prejudice to respondent.
|
17 November 1999 |
|
Court allowed an out-of-time appeal where the applicant was blameless for counsel’s negligence, setting new filing timelines and costs.
Extension of time to appeal – application for leave to file Notice of Appeal and institute appeal out of time – negligence of former counsel – principle that client not to be penalised for advocate’s default if client blameless – sufficient cause under Court’s rules – requirement to demonstrate court delay or prospects of success.
|
16 November 1999 |
| October 1999 |
|
|
|
7 October 1999 |
|
Counsel's mistaken belief and genuine international transfer delays constituted sufficient cause to set aside dismissal for failure to furnish security for costs.
* Civil procedure — Security for costs — Order 23 r.2(2) — Setting aside dismissal for failure to furnish security — "Sufficient cause" — Mistake by counsel and international transfer delays may constitute sufficient cause.
* Appeals — Role of first appellate court — Duty to re‑appraise affidavit evidence on appeal from High Court exercising original jurisdiction.
* Discretion — Appellate interference — Court should not overturn trial judge's discretionary reinstatement unless exercise was unjudicial or plainly wrong.
* Evidence — Opposing affidavit must disclose means of knowledge; failure may render it defective.
|
5 October 1999 |
|
A lease granted without required ministerial consent is void ab initio and cannot be salvaged by a repossession certificate.
Land Transfer Act s.2 – mandatory ministerial consent for non‑African acquisitions; illegality of contracts – nullity ab initio; Expropriated Properties Act – repossession certificate cannot create rights where none existed; standard of proof – balance of probabilities; conduct (receipt of rent/re‑entry) cannot validate illegal lease.
|
5 October 1999 |
| August 1999 |
|
|
|
25 August 1999 |
|
|
25 August 1999 |
|
An objector must prove, on the balance of probabilities, sufficient proprietary interest to discharge a warrant of attachment.
Civil procedure — Order 19 (objection to warrant of attachment) — Scope of inquiry limited to whether objector has sufficient proprietary interest — Burden on objector to prove interest on balance of probabilities — Affidavit evidence and admissibility of underlying documents on interlocutory applications.
|
10 August 1999 |
|
An objector to attachment must prove possession or interest on a balance of probabilities; affidavits may suffice; appeal dismissed.
Civil procedure – objections to attachment (Order 19) – burden on objector to prove interest/possession – admissibility and weight of affidavit evidence in interlocutory proceedings – standard of proof: balance of probabilities.
|
10 August 1999 |
|
|
9 August 1999 |
| July 1999 |
|
|
|
27 July 1999 |
| June 1999 |
|
|
Whether the Constitutional Court may hear enforcement claims absent a question requiring interpretation of the Constitution.
Constitutional jurisdiction – Article 137 – Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction limited to matters requiring interpretation of the Constitution; Constitutional remedies under Article 50 to be sought in competent courts where interpretation is not required; Government Proceedings Act s.4(5) and Article 128(4) – immunity for judicial acts; procedural distinction between striking out pleadings (O.7 r.11/O.6 r.29) and deciding preliminary points of law (O.6 rr.27–28/O.13 r.2); time limit for Constitutional petitions (Rule 4(1), Legal Notice No.4 of 1996).
|
11 June 1999 |
| May 1999 |
|
|
|
27 May 1999 |
|
Joinder under Order 1 r.10(2) may occur absent a direct cause of action; Court of Appeal rightly remitted the case for trial and costs followed the event.
Civil procedure — Joinder of parties — Order 1 r.10(2) CPR — party may be joined not for cause of action but because their presence is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate all questions; appeal — remit for trial on merits — costs — general rule that costs follow the event; appellate review of discretion on costs only if wrong principle applied.
|
27 May 1999 |
|
Offences in the Witchcraft Act are defined; section 7 is void insofar as it authorises exclusion from a person’s home as inhuman.
Constitutional law — criminal law — sufficiency of definition of offence under Article 28(12) — interpretation of Witchcraft Act ss.2,3 and 6; Human rights — prohibition of torture/cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment — constitutionality of exclusion/banishment orders under s.7 Witchcraft Act; Property rights — exclusion orders not compulsorily acquiring property under Article 26(2); Remedies — "reading down" v. severance/voiding of unconstitutional statutory provisions.
|
25 May 1999 |
|
Sections 2–3 define witchcraft offences; section 7 exclusion orders excluding a person from their home violate Articles 24 and 44.
Constitutional law — criminal law — vagueness and fair trial — Article 28(12) — offences under Witchcraft Act (ss.2–3) sufficiently defined; Constitutional law — punishment — exclusion/banishment orders (s.7, Witchcraft Act) — Article 24 and Art.44(a) — exclusion from one’s home may be cruel, inhuman and degrading and hence unconstitutional; Property — Article 26(2) — exclusion order does not ordinarily constitute compulsory acquisition; Remedy — reading-down versus partial invalidation — statute void to extent of inconsistency with Constitution.
|
25 May 1999 |
|
|
6 May 1999 |
|
Stay granted pending second appeal; special circumstances found and security ordered (title plus Shs.50 million).
Stay of execution – Rule 5(2)(b) – requirement of special circumstances and good cause – acceptability of land as security – Rule 100 and Rule 100(3) – adequacy of security – joint and several liability – stay of costs.
|
6 May 1999 |
|
The court granted a stay of execution, emphasizing special circumstances and supporting the applicant's appeal rights with adequate security.
Stay of execution - special circumstances - appeal rights - adequate security - joint and several liability
|
6 May 1999 |
| March 1999 |
|
|
Promoters may enforce a pre‑incorporation joint‑venture agreement; incorporation did not extinguish promoters’ contractual obligations.
Company law – Pre‑incorporation agreements – Promoters’ rights – Enforceability of pre‑incorporation joint venture agreements between promoters despite subsequent incorporation; consideration; specific performance.
|
18 March 1999 |
| February 1999 |
|
|
Summary dismissal was justified for repeated breaches; only vested deferred pension contributions are payable, not full salary to retirement.
Employment law – summary dismissal – contractual right to dismiss without notice for breach or unsatisfactory conduct; evidence of repeated excess lending and failure to report; correct measure of damages for wrongful dismissal limited to notice or payment in lieu; deferred pension contributions vested and payable despite dismissal.
|
24 February 1999 |
|
Summary dismissal for repeated breaches of lending limits upheld; damages limited to notice in lieu and only deferred pension payable.
* Employment law – summary dismissal – breaches of lending limits by bank manager may justify summary dismissal; prior hearing not always required. * Remedies – payment in lieu of notice where notice omitted; not full contractual future remuneration. * Pension – dismissed officials barred from immediate pension; only vested deferred pension payable.
|
24 February 1999 |
|
Employee entitled to unpaid salary arrears; wrongful termination damages limited to contractual six-month notice pay.
Employment law – wrongful dismissal – measure of damages where contract is terminable by notice – six months' pay in lieu limits special damages; unpaid salary and employer's failure to provide work – arrears recoverable; Employment Decree 1975 s.16 – employer's obligation to provide work and pay for days work not provided; mitigation – burden on employer to prove availability of alternative employment; costs – appellate court should give reasons when departing from usual rule that costs follow the event.
|
24 February 1999 |
|
Fixed-term employment terminable on notice yields damages for notice period; unpaid arrears recoverable to date of repudiation.
Employment law – wrongful termination of fixed-term but terminable contract – agreed notice clause governs measure of damages; Employment Decree s.16 – obligation to provide work/pay does not change common-law rule on repudiation; unpaid remuneration recoverable as debt; burden of proof on mitigation lies on employer; appellate costs discretionary.
|
24 February 1999 |
|
|
15 February 1999 |
|
Distress under the Act was unlawful due to lack of tenant status and authorised bailiff, but eviction of trespassers was lawful; return or compensation ordered.
* Property law – landlord and tenant – termination of tenancy and trespass – tenant’s refusal to acknowledge new owner converts tenant into trespasser. * Distress for rent – statutory prerequisites – landlord/tenant relationship and authorised bailiff or landlord’s attorney required under Distress for Rent (Bailiffs) Act. * Agency and power of attorney – personal power to an individual does not automatically vest corporate manager or company with attorney powers. * Eviction – owner’s right to evict trespassers and remove goods using reasonable force. * Remedies – unlawful distress requires return of goods or payment of their value and may attract damages. * Evidence – appellate court must determine admissibility of critical exhibits.
|
14 February 1999 |
|
Court reluctantly granted extension to restore an appeal, holding counsel’s oversight can justify extension despite delay and some false averments.
Supreme Court Rules r.4 – extension of time; whether counsel’s oversight/mistake is "sufficient reason"; discretion to extend time despite inordinate delay; credibility of affidavits containing false averments; costs where applicant's default necessitates proceedings.
|
12 February 1999 |
|
Court reluctantly granted an extension under Rule 4 to restore an appeal despite counsel’s oversight and inordinate delay.
Supreme Court Rules r.4 – extension of time to apply for restoration of appeal; counsel’s oversight as "sufficient reason"; distinction between error of judgment and lack of diligence; inordinate delay and conflicting affidavits; discretionary grant of extension to enable hearing on merits.
|
12 February 1999 |
|
Supreme Court grants extension of time for appeal restoration due to counsel's oversight, despite delay.
Civil Procedure - Application for extension of time - Sufficient reason - Counsel's error - Restoration of dismissed appeal
|
12 February 1999 |
| January 1999 |
|
|
Court ordered additional security for costs where respondent was a foreign corporation with no known assets in Uganda.
* Civil procedure – security for costs – Rule 100(3) Supreme Court Rules – Court may order security for past and future costs at any time.
* Civil procedure – untaxed bills – taxation not an absolute prerequisite to ordering security; reasonable estimates/skeleton bills acceptable.
* Conflict of laws/foreign litigant – foreign corporation with no assets in jurisdiction – justification for ordering security for costs.
* Assets in jurisdiction – deposit in lower court not necessarily sufficient to cover appellate costs.
* Procedure – delay and prejudice – prompt application vindicated; proximity of hearing date not determinative.
|
22 January 1999 |
|
Extrinsic evidence may be admitted to show bank forbearance as valid consideration when a mortgage’s written recital misdescribes the parties’ true agreement.
Evidence — Parol evidence rule — Evidence Act ss.90–91 — proviso allows extrinsic evidence to prove failure or existence of consideration; Contract law — implication of terms — courts may imply terms into written agreements where documentary language is inconsistent or meaningless in factual context; Consideration — forbearance (postponement of enforcement) constitutes good consideration for a third party’s promise to assume a debt; Procedure — appellate courts cannot receive fresh evidence or unpleaded defences on second appeal without proper application.
|
12 January 1999 |
|
Appellant failed to prove mandatory ministerial consent; a repossession certificate cannot validate a lease void ab initio.
Land Transfer Act s.2 – mandatory ministerial consent for non‑African acquisition; lease validity – nullity ab initio for lack of consent; Expropriated Properties Act – repossession certificate cannot validate an illegal lease; burden and standard of proof – claimant must prove consent on balance of probabilities; illegality may be raised in defence; registration provisions do not cure a void lease.
|
5 January 1999 |
