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
3 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
3 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
January 1999
Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application 20 of 1998) [1999] UGSC 33 (22 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
General Industries (U) Ltd v Non. Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Civil Appeal 5 of 1998) [1999] UGSC 8 (12 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
Kisugu Quarries Ltd v Administrator General (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1998) [1999] UGSC 40 (5 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