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

11 judgments

Advanced search

All years

All months

Filters

Sort by:

11 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
October 2010
Saroj Gandesha v Transroad [2010] UGSC 27 (28 October 2010) Consent variation order allocating decretal funds to named beneficiaries precluded administrator’s liability to account for those sums. • Civil procedure – Consent variation order – post‑judgment apportionment of decretal sums – effect and enforceability. • Judgment in rem v judgment in personam – when a consent order binds third parties. • Advocates Act – scope of section 56; administrators’ duties to account; client funds and trust account rules. • Champerty/assignment – when post‑judgment dispositions may be attacked and proper remedy is setting aside the order. • Abuse of process – seeking accountability inconsistent with an earlier court‑endorsed distribution.	28 October 2010
Uganda Projects Implementation And Management Centre Vs. Uganda Revenue Authority [2010] UGSC 17 (28 October 2010) Requirement to pay 30% VAT before appeal restricts but does not deny access to court; restriction held justifiable. Constitutional law — VAT Act s.34C(3) — requirement to pay 30% before appeal — access to court — limitation under Art.43 — ‘pay now, argue later’ principle; discrimination under Art.21; availability of remedies: s.34(4) application to Commissioner and judicial review in High Court.	28 October 2010
Lawrence Kitts v Bugisu Cooperative Union (Civil Appeal No.15 Of 2004) [2010] UGSC 9 (27 October 2010) Appellant's customary tenure was at sufferance and, absent fraud, respondent's registered title is protected. Land law – customary tenure – Land Reform Decree 1975 s.3(1)-(2) – customary occupation at sufferance and convertible to lease; Registration of Titles Act – ss.56, 61, 184 – certificate of title conclusive except in fraud; bona fide purchaser for value without notice; fraud standard higher than balance of probabilities; unaccepted lease offer does not protect customary holder against subsequent lawful grant.	27 October 2010
Nandudu & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 4 of 2009) [2010] UGSC 43 (26 October 2010)	26 October 2010
Nandudu Grace,Nakiwolo Florence v Uganda [2010] UGSC 10 (26 October 2010) Malice aforethought was not proved; murder convictions quashed and substituted with manslaughter due to insufficient evidence. Criminal law – homicide – murder versus manslaughter – malice aforethought – burden of proof – inference from circumstantial and medical evidence – need for clear evidence of intent or knowledge under section 191 of the Penal Code Act.	26 October 2010
Mujibhai Madhvani & Co. Ltd. & Anor. Vs. Francis Mugarura & 35 Ors. [2010] UGSC 21 (20 October 2010) Whether the Expropriated Properties Act voids employment contracts and whether the repossessing owner is liable for terminal benefits. Expropriated Properties Act – s.2(2)(a) – statutory interpretation – nullification applies to transfers of title and property dealings, not employment contracts entered during lawful government management. Employment law – validity of post‑expropriation employment terms – Board‑adopted terms binding; evidence of adoption and calculations decisive. Estoppel – repossessing shareholder who accepted handover listing liabilities and made payments estopped from denying liability for terminal benefits. Evidence – contemporaneous documents (memos, handover, letters) admitted without objection are persuasive.	20 October 2010
Concorp International Ltd. Vs. East and Southern Development Bank (Civil Appeal 11 of 2009) [2010] UGSC 19 (18 October 2010) CL\|Breach of Contract\|Immunity\|Sovereignty\|Purposive Interpretation	18 October 2010
Kakooza Godfrey Vs. Uganda (Criminal Appeal 3 of 2008) [2010] UGSC 11 (18 October 2010) Conviction upheld on doctrine of recent possession; omission to call arresting officer was not fatal. Criminal procedure – simple robbery; doctrine of recent possession; admissibility of police intelligence/communication from foreign police (INTERPOL) – hearsay; failure to call arresting officer – not necessarily fatal; identification evidence – no parade; scope of review by second appellate court on concurrent findings of fact.	18 October 2010
Nagji Textiles Ltd v A.B Popat & 2 Ors [2010] UGSC 31 (13 October 2010) Single-director revocation ineffective; transfers under valid powers of attorney upheld and no fraud proven. Company law – authority of directors – powers of attorney validly granted by two directors bind the company. Agency – power of attorney – revocation ineffective if not properly authorized, registered or communicated to third parties. Property – validity of sale/transfer under a power of attorney. Evidence – fraud must be proved; bona fide purchaser protection where no notice of defect.	13 October 2010
CISE Dispensers (u) Ltd v Executive Secretary, National Drug Authority [2010] UGSC 18 (8 October 2010) The National Drug Authority lawfully inspected and seized scheduled restricted drugs; the two Acts complement each other; appeal dismissed with costs. Statutory interpretation – relationship between Allied Health Professionals Act and National Drug Policy and Authority Act – complementary regulatory regimes; Administrative powers – authority to inspect and seize under NDPA; Drug control – classification of restricted drugs by schedule and reliance on expert evidence; Disposal of seized drugs – procedures under NDPA (section 51 and 60) where criminal proceedings may be pending.	8 October 2010
Mulowooza and Brothers Ltd v N. Shah and Co. Ltd (Civil Application 20 of 2010) [2010] UGSC 36 (6 October 2010) A brief inadvertent failure by counsel to serve a notice of appeal can justify extension of time where delay is short and equity demands it. Extension of time – service of Notice of Appeal – whether inadvertent failure by counsel to serve constitutes sufficient reason under Rule 5 – short delay (about 20 days) not inordinate – equity and merits of appeal – parties to bear own costs.	6 October 2010