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
7 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
7 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
August 2010
Ongom John Bosco Vs. Uganda (Criminal Appeal 21 of 2007) [2010] UGSC 14 (20 August 2010)
20 August 2010
Bhatia v Boutique Shazim Ltd (Civil Appeal 16 of 2009) [2010] UGSC 40 (17 August 2010)
Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action for specific performance and should proceed to trial; appeal dismissed.
Civil procedure — Pleading — Cause of action — A cause of action is a bundle of facts giving rise to a right to relief; courts assume facts in the plaint true when deciding if a cause of action is disclosed. Pleading — Strike out under order 7 rule 11 — Factual disputes (agency, timing, mode of payment, passing of title) are triable issues and not proper grounds for striking out where the plaint, on its face, discloses a cause of action. Amendment — Defects in pleadings may be cured by amendment or by ordering further and better particulars. Res judicata — Earlier proceedings did not bar the later suit where cause of action was properly pleaded.
 17 August 2010
Namwanje Pauline v Uganda [2010] UGSC 5 (17 August 2010)
Court upheld murder conviction on reliable visual identification and confirmed the death sentence; minor inconsistencies were immaterial.
Criminal law – murder – visual identification – reliability of eyewitness identification at night by torchlight. Evidentiary inconsistencies – immaterial discrepancies regarding scene description do not necessarily vitiate conviction. Appeals – scope of re-evaluation by appellate courts and deference to trial judge’s credibility findings. Sentence – mitigation considered; death sentence confirmed in absence of mitigating circumstances.
 17 August 2010
Narottam Bhatia & Another v Boutique Shazimi Ltd (Civil Appeal 16 of 2009) [2010] UGSC 7 (17 August 2010)
Civil Procedure|Appeals and reviews
 17 August 2010
Rwakashaija Azarious & 2 Others v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal 8 of 2009) [2010] UGSC 8 (17 August 2010)
17 August 2010
Sentiba and Others v Inspectorate of Government (Civil Appeal 6 of 2008) [2010] UGSC 38 (17 August 2010)
The IGG has no civil capacity to challenge court judgments; Section 19 bars it from reviewing or investigating matters before courts.
Constitutional and statutory limits on Inspectorate of Government: IGG lacks implied corporate personality or civil capacity to sue; Section 19(1)(a) and (c) bars IGG from questioning or reviewing court decisions and from investigating civil matters pending or commenced before the courts; Attorney General remains principal legal representative of the State; protection of judicial independence and finality of judgments.
 17 August 2010
Sentiba Gordon & Others v Inspector of Government (Civil Appeal 6 of 2008) [2010] UGSC 30 (17 August 2010)
The Inspectorate cannot sue to set aside judicial decisions or investigate civil matters already before court; it lacks civil standing absent express statutory corporate status.
Constitutional and statutory interpretation – Inspectorate of Government – legal capacity to sue and be sued – limits of IGG’s investigatory powers – Section 19(1)(a) and (c) IGG Act – finality and independence of the Judiciary – Attorney General as principal legal adviser and proper representative of Government in civil proceedings.
 17 August 2010