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
6 judgments
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
6 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
March 2014
The Court allowed admission of the full IGG report as elucidatory evidence, exercising inherent powers due to exceptional circumstances.
Civil procedure – admission of additional evidence on appeal; inherent powers of the Court under Rule 2(2) and Section 98 to do justice; distinction between additional evidence and evidence to elucidate material already on record; allegations of fraud/forgery and public interest as exceptional circumstances justifying admission; receivership and capacity to sue left for determination in main appeal.
25 March 2014
Article 83(1)(g)(h) causes loss of seat for party-switching, not automatic nullification of later nominations.
Constitution — Article 83(1)(g)(h): change of party allegiance — sanction is loss of seat, not automatic nullification of future nominations; Constitutional interpretation — generous/purposive approach; Vacancy determination — Article 86 and Parliamentary Elections Act procedures; Nomination validity — governed by Parliamentary Elections Act (s.13).
25 March 2014
25 March 2014
The court ruled no genuine property sale occurred, maintaining plaintiffs' ownership rights.
Property Law – Alleged sale of property – Non-existence of genuine sale – Power of attorney – Tenant management.
25 March 2014
Court set aside Court of Appeal ruling where a judge who did not hear the appeal participated in and signed the decision, breaching fair hearing.
Appellate procedure — reserved judgments — requirement that judges who heard the hearing must sign/write the reasons — Rule 33(10); Appellate procedure — new grounds of illegality not pleaded — Rule 102(c) — right to be heard; Fair hearing — Article 28(1) — participation of a judge who did not hear the case violates natural justice; Arbitration — jurisdiction and competence issues (not decided on remittal).
25 March 2014
25 March 2014