|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2000 |
|
|
|
12 December 2000 |
| November 2000 |
|
|
|
23 November 2000 |
|
|
21 November 2000 |
|
|
20 November 2000 |
| October 2000 |
|
|
|
18 October 2000 |
|
|
18 October 2000 |
CL|Unlawful Or Unfair Dismissal|Quantum of Damages|Aggravated Damages
|
17 October 2000 |
|
|
17 October 2000 |
|
Court ordered further security for costs (Shs.31m each) pending appeal due to unpaid taxed costs, poor payment history and limited assets.
* Civil procedure – Security for costs – Rule 100(3) Supreme Court Rules and s.404 Companies Act – power to order further security pending appeal, including for past taxed costs related to matters in the appeal.
* Burden of proof – applicant must satisfy Court that further security is necessary; order is discretionary.
* Factors – probability of success on appeal, unpaid taxed costs, payment history (dishonoured cheques), lack of realizable assets, respondent’s absence from jurisdiction.
* Remedies – Court may fix amount for security and award costs on successful application.
|
17 October 2000 |
| August 2000 |
|
|
|
14 August 2000 |
|
|
8 August 2000 |
|
|
4 August 2000 |
|
|
4 August 2000 |
| July 2000 |
|
|
|
28 July 2000 |
|
The taxing officer applied wrong principles and awarded manifestly excessive interlocutory costs to the respondent.
Taxation of costs – Interlocutory applications – Proper rule: paragraph 9(1) Third Schedule to the Rules – Taxing officer must assess reasonable instruction fees based on instructions and actual work done – Improper consideration of extraneous policy matters (prestige, recruitment, inflation) – Manifestly excessive costs – Current scales applicable to work done.
|
28 July 2000 |
|
|
28 July 2000 |
|
Taxing master’s excessive instruction fees reduced and costs disallowed for an undecided counterclaim; taxed bill adjusted to Shs.22,992,500.
Costs — Taxation under Rule 105 — Third Schedule — instruction fees — perusals and written submissions included in instruction fee; manifestly excessive awards reducible; costs not allowable for counterclaim not decided by courts; substantive justice over technical defects in party name.
|
12 July 2000 |
|
|
7 July 2000 |
|
Court reinstated trial finding of employer vicarious liability, adjusted apportionment to 40% liability against respondents and ordered interest and increased special damages.
* Negligence – duty of care and leaving an unlit, unguarded vehicle on the road; * Vicarious liability – employer’s responsibility for servant’s negligence in course of employment; * Appellate review – limits on re-evaluation of trial judge’s factual findings and weight to be accorded post-accident photographs; * Apportionment of liability between tortfeasors; * Assessment of special and general damages and awarding of interest.
|
7 July 2000 |
|
Supreme Court: both drivers negligent; apportionment 60% taxi driver, 40% tractor driver; High Court judgment reinstated with variations.
Negligence – motor collision with stationary vehicle at night – adequacy of warnings and lighting; appellate re‑evaluation of evidence; admissibility and weight of post‑accident photographs; apportionment of blame between moving vehicle driver and stationary vehicle driver; joint and several liability; interest on damages.
|
7 July 2000 |
|
Supreme Court held both drivers negligent, apportioned liability 60% taxi driver and 40% tractor driver, reinstating High Court judgment.
Appellate review of factual findings; admissibility and weight of photographs taken after an accident; negligence of stationary unlit vehicle partly on carriageway; contributory negligence and apportionment of blame; joint and several liability; interest on damages (special damages from filing, general from judgment).
|
1 July 2000 |
| June 2000 |
|
|
|
14 June 2000 |
|
Whether the applicant waived or was estopped from suing for delayed repairs—court held no and awarded damages.
* Contract law – repair contracts – implied term that work be done within reasonable time where no express time stipulated – delay and breach.
* Waiver and estoppel – distinction: waiver requires agreement to relinquish rights; estoppel requires representation relied upon – neither proved where plaintiff simply forbeares to sue.
* Notice making time of the essence – not mandatory where no express term; innocent party not obliged to give fresh notice before suing.
* Remedies – appellate power to assess damages where trial court made sufficient factual findings and litigation protraction makes remittal undesirable.
|
14 June 2000 |
|
Whether the appellant proved a lawful customary kibanja (mailo owner’s consent) and whether his deposit must be refunded.
Land law – customary kibanja – requirement of mailo owner’s consent under the Busuulu and Envujjo Law (1928) – burden of proof; Appellate review – re‑evaluation of evidence where trial judge failed to scrutinise conflicting evidence; Contract – oral sale and deposit – refundability and unjust enrichment when vendor repudiates sale; Demolition – lawfulness of clearing illegal structures under court warrant.
|
14 June 2000 |
|
Whether the applicant waived contractual rights or needed to make time of the essence before suing for breach of a repair contract.
* Contract law – repair contract – implied term that performance be within reasonable time where no time stipulated; failure to repair within reasonable time amounts to breach. * Waiver and estoppel – distinct doctrines: waiver is contractual (requires agreement); estoppel is evidentiary (requires representation relied upon); neither was proved. * Time of the essence – where no express time stipulated, innocent party need not give notice making time of the essence before suing. * Civil appeals – appellate assessment of damages appropriate where findings permit and interests of justice justify final determination.
|
14 June 2000 |
|
|
1 June 2000 |
| May 2000 |
|
|
|
9 May 2000 |
|
|
8 May 2000 |
|
|
7 May 2000 |
|
|
4 May 2000 |
|
|
2 May 2000 |
| April 2000 |
|
|
|
19 April 2000 |
|
|
7 April 2000 |
| March 2000 |
|
|
Conviction upheld: one confession inadmissible but admissible confession, dying declaration and circumstantial evidence sustain murder verdict.
* Criminal law – admissibility of confessions – Section 24 Evidence Act – confession made in custody inadmissible; confession before arrest admissible. * Criminal law – dying declaration – corroboration a rule of practice, not law; admissible if circumstances exclude mistake. * Evidence – weight of circumstantial evidence and unchallenged extra-judicial statements may support conviction.
|
9 March 2000 |
|
The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction, validating confession evidence and accepting the reliability of a dying declaration.
Criminal law – Murder – Admissibility of confessions under Evidence Act – Reliability of dying declarations in trial.
|
9 March 2000 |
|
A claimant must prove actual earnings at injury time to recover claimed future loss of earnings.
Damages — personal injury — assessment of future loss of earnings — necessity of proving actual earnings at time of injury — prospective loss estimated on proved facts; appellate interference with discretionary awards only where wrong principle or manifestly erroneous award.
|
2 March 2000 |
|
|
1 March 2000 |
| February 2000 |
|
|
|
28 February 2000 |
|
|
17 February 2000 |
|
|
17 February 2000 |
|
Filing duplicate plaints, hiding amendments and flawed substituted service amounted to abuse; counsel must be heard before personal costs.
Civil procedure – Abuse of process – Duplicate plaints and undisclosed amendments – Ex parte prosecution and defective substituted service – Power to strike out pleadings – Sanctions against counsel – Natural justice requires hearing before ordering personal costs against advocate.
|
16 February 2000 |
|
|
15 February 2000 |
|
Whether appellant and co-defendant formed a particular unregistered partnership and whether general damages were properly awarded.
Partnership law — particular (ad hoc/unregistered) partnership — evidence of holding-out; Partnership Act s.18 (holding out) and pleading requirements; appellate review — weight of concurrent findings of fact; procedure — striking out a co-defendant's defence; damages — special damages (price) proved; general damages set aside and interest substituted.
|
15 February 2000 |
|
|
14 February 2000 |
|
|
14 February 2000 |
| January 2000 |
|
|
Arbitral award remitted to quantify refunds; registered title upheld absent proof of fraud or lack of consideration.
* Arbitration law – repeal and saving provisions – Arbitration Act (Cap.55) governs arbitrations commenced before new Act. * Arbitration – remit of award – error on face of award, uncertainty, and excess of jurisdiction – unjust enrichment and not in pari delicto justify refund orders; specificity required for monetary refunds. * Evidence – ownership of movables – award sufficiently certain where record and correspondence identify items. * Land law – registration of title – certificate of title generally indefeasible; title not impeached absent strict proof of fraud or absence of consideration. * Statutory interpretation – Money Lenders Act not applicable where transactions involve security of real property and fall under registration/mortgage law.
|
1 January 2000 |
|
Claim for income loss requires proof of actual earnings for awarding damages.
Torts - Personal injury - Award of damages - Loss of earning capacity - Requirement of proof of prior earnings.
|
1 January 2000 |
