|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
|
Judgment |
31 January 2025 |
|
|
Judgment |
13 December 2024 |
Civil Procedure—summary suit—leave to defend—advocate-client costs—conflict of interest—professional misconduct—illiterate affidavit—no triable issue—application struck out—judgment entered—costs awarded
|
Judgment |
3 December 2024 |
|
Court reduced manifestly excessive instruction fees in election-petition taxation, adjusting awards to reasonable levels.
* Taxation of costs – instruction fees in election petitions – application of sixth schedule (Regs. 6 and 9) to Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 2018 – interference with taxing officer only in exceptional cases where award is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. * Factors: nature, importance, complexity, novelty, place, time expended, public interest and prevailing economics. * Election petition remuneration balanced against public interest not to deter candidates.
|
Judgment |
6 November 2024 |
|
Court struck out affidavits illegally obtained, affirmed dismissal for insufficient evidence, and denied winner's costs for counsel misconduct.
Election law – Election petition – Parliamentary Elections Act s.61 – standard and burden of proof (balance of probabilities and satisfaction of court); Advocates' Professional Conduct – Rule 19 – improper solicitation of recanting affidavits and striking out forbidden affidavits; Evidence – requirement for corroborative electoral materials (ballot boxes, voters' registers) to prove quantitative/qualitative non-compliance; Attribution of irregularities – not a prerequisite for setting aside election; Costs – denial of costs for counsel misconduct and referral to Law Council.
|
Judgment |
19 March 2024 |
|
Admissibility of uncertified DR forms and formal defects in affidavits determine proof in an election petition; appeal dismissed.
Electoral law – Parliamentary election petition – standard and burden of proof – balance of probabilities and cogent evidence; Affidavits – jurat and certification formalities, Illiterates Protection Act; Signatures – discrepancies with National ID do not alone invalidate affidavits absent contrary evidence; Evidence – public documents (DR forms) require certified copies under Evidence Act ss.73,75,76; secondary evidence admissible only in exceptional circumstances and after notice to produce; Appellate procedure – grounds must be concise and non‑argumentative.
|
Judgment |
24 January 2024 |
|
Petitioner failed to prove substantial non-compliance; election upheld and petition dismissed with costs.
* Election law – burden and standard of proof – petitioner must prove non-compliance and substantial effect on result (high degree of probability).
* Affidavit evidence – recanting witnesses and Rule 19 issues – recanting affidavits rejected as not credible where contradictory and uncorroborated.
* Evidence requirements – importance of original voters’ registers, appointment of agents, and contemporaneous complaints when alleging polling irregularities.
* Presence of security and minor disturbances – lawful police intervention does not automatically vitiate an election.
* Remedies – where non-compliance not shown to be substantial, election will not be nullified.
|
Judgment |
20 January 2023 |
|
Appellant failed to prove lack of qualifications or bribery; election valid and appeal dismissed.
Election law – Candidate qualifications – proof of academic credentials and identity; Evidence – evaluation of witness credibility and materiality of inconsistencies; Electoral offences – bribery – elements: gift by candidate/agent, intent to influence registered voters, proof of recipients being registered voters; Electronic evidence – admissibility and authenticity under the Electronic Transactions Act 2011; Appellate review – re-evaluation of affidavit and oral evidence.
|
Judgment |
5 August 2022 |
|
|
Judgment |
24 June 2022 |
|
Appellant failed to prove respondent lacked required A‑Level qualification; UNEB explanation and corroborating evidence upheld.
* Election law – qualification for parliamentary office – minimum A‑Level requirement and proof thereof.
* Documentary evidence – identity and name discrepancies; evidential weight of original certificates, entry forms and issuing authority correspondence.
* UNEB practice – meaning and effect of "SUPPLEMENTARY" inscription on certificates.
* Burden and standard of proof in election petitions – balance of probabilities; need for cogent evidence.
* Pre‑nomination complaints and estoppel – failure to complain during nomination may bar subsequent challenges.
|
Judgment |
16 June 2022 |
|
A court cannot extend a mandatory statutory time limit for filing an election petition; proceedings after such an unlawful extension are nullities.
* Constitutional and statutory interpretation – Local Government Act s.138 – mandatory statutory time-limits for filing election petitions – courts have no inherent jurisdiction to extend such periods. * Election law – jurisdiction – proceedings continued after unlawful extension of filing time are nullities. * Electoral procedure – residency and voter-registration challenges rendered academic where petition is time-barred.
|
Judgment |
6 May 2022 |
|
Nomination complaints belong to the Electoral Commission pre‑poll; petitioner failed to prove bribery or tender admissible evidence.
Electoral law — Pre‑poll nomination complaints — Jurisdiction of Electoral Commission as first instance and appeals to High Court; Evidence — Admissibility — foundational proof for court orders, hearsay and timing inconsistencies; Voter proof — National Voters’ Register required to prove a person is a registered voter; Election offences — Bribery must be proved with corroboration and proof recipients were registered voters; Appellate procedure — fresh issues not raised at trial cannot be entertained on appeal.
|
Judgment |
6 May 2022 |
|
Strike‑out application dismissed where memorandum and record were timely filed and service rules were not breached.
Election appeals — procedure — essential steps to prosecute appeal — filing Memorandum of Appeal within 7 days — Record of Appeal within 30 days — service rules under Rule 80 and Rule 88 — computation of time and registry stamps — strike‑out application dismissed.
|
Judgment |
6 May 2022 |
|
Applicant failed to prove essential procedural non-compliance; appeal documents were filed and service did not justify striking out.
Election law — appeals — procedural requirements — filing of Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal within prescribed time; service of record — Rule 80 notice of address for service; Rule 88 categorisation and timelines; failure to show prejudice — strike out application dismissed.
|
Judgment |
6 May 2022 |
|
|
Judgment |
4 May 2022 |
|
An appeal was struck out because the Memorandum of Appeal was filed out of the seven‑day statutory time without explanation.
* Election law – parliamentary election petition appeals – time limits for Notice, Memorandum and Record of Appeal (Rules 29–31). * Civil procedure – strike out of appeal – Rule 82 Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules – essential steps not taken within prescribed time. * Procedural irregularity – citation of wrong law not necessarily fatal where correct jurisdictional basis exists. * Affidavit evidence as pleading – summary of evidence not always required.
|
Judgment |
26 April 2022 |
|
|
Judgment |
25 April 2022 |
|
Court may allow payment of filing-fee shortfalls under section 97 CPA and should not expunge illiterate affidavits without calling deponents.
* Election law – Filing fees – Mandatory rules versus judicial discretion – Applicability of section 97 Civil Procedure Act to election petitions via Rule 17.
* Procedural law – Preliminary objections – Trial court discretion to hear points of law at outset.
* Evidence – Affidavits executed by illiterate deponents – Illiterates Protection Act compliance and need to summon deponents before expunging affidavits.
* Remedies – Setting aside dismissal for curable procedural defects and remitting matter for trial on merits.
|
Judgment |
25 April 2022 |
|
|
Judgment |
1 September 2021 |
|
|
Judgment |
2 August 2021 |
|
|
Judgment |
18 March 2021 |
|
Recount applications are discretionary and require cogent direct evidence; hearsay and unsigned allegations do not justify recounts.
Election law – Recount and scrutiny of ballot papers – Discretionary nature of recounts under section 55(1) PEA – Requirement for cogent, non-hearsay evidence to justify recount – Significance of signed DR forms and permissible multiple handwriting – Costs and security for costs under sections 55(3) and 56(2) PEA.
|
Judgment |
2 February 2021 |
|
|
Judgment |
27 February 2018 |
|
|
Judgment |
6 February 2017 |
|
Applicant failed to prove respondent was not a Ugandan citizen; respondent’s Ugandan documents established lawful nomination and election.
* Election law – qualification to stand for Parliament – citizenship by birth and descent under the Constitution and relevant statutes.
* Evidence – authenticity and admissibility of documentary proof (uncertified photocopies, foreign voter cards) and proper proof of provenance.
* Burden and standard of proof in election petitions – contestant bears burden; balance of probabilities.
* Local authority powers – limits on registration of aliens under Aliens (Registration and Control) Act.
|
Judgment |
15 August 2016 |
|
Court set aside parliamentary election after court‑ordered recount was frustrated by destruction of ballot boxes, ordering a fresh election.
* Election law – mandatory recount (s.54 PEA) – timing and effect of transmission of results; court‑sanctioned recount (s.55 PEA) – adjournment and frustration. * Destruction/tampering of ballot boxes – non‑compliance with s.52 PEA and inability to audit results. * Non‑compliance – quantitative and qualitative effect on an election decided by a narrow margin. * Electoral offences – insufficient evidence to prove culpability where criminal proceedings pending. * Remedy – election set aside; fresh election ordered; partial costs against Electoral Commission.
|
Judgment |
14 June 2016 |
|
The respondent’s failure to file the record and memorandum within the prescribed time rendered the appeal incompetent and struck out.
Appeal procedure — mandatory filing of Record and Memorandum of Appeal within 60 days — failure to take essential step renders appeal incompetent — striking out appeal and costs.
|
Judgment |
30 April 2004 |
|
An unendorsed Notice of Appeal missing date/time is a nullity, making the appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out with costs.
Appeal procedure – Notice of Appeal – mandatory endorsement by High Court Registrar and indication of date/time – absence renders notice a nullity; service of notice must be proved; procedural rules substantive, not mere technicalities.
|
Judgment |
27 November 2003 |
|
An appeal filed without mandatory leave is incompetent, rendering related interim applications unenforceable and dismissible.
Civil procedure – Appeal competency – Requirement of leave to appeal from tribunal – Appeal filed without mandatory leave is incompetent and divests court of jurisdiction; interlocutory applications founded on such incompetent appeals are likewise incompetent; single judge’s powers under rule 52(1)(c) are limited.
|
Judgment |
30 June 2003 |
|
The plaintiff proved payment for half the property and is entitled to half possession and rents; counterclaim dismissed.
Property law – co-ownership (tenants in common) – burden of proof of payment of purchase money; Resulting trust and fraud – requirement of strict proof; Registration of Titles Act – protection of registered proprietor; Power of Attorney – unregistered instrument acted upon and later revoked; Equitable mortgage – not established; Accounting – duty of managing co-owner to account for rents and expenses.
|
Judgment |
25 June 1996 |
|
The applicant's registered title is protected absent strict proof of fraud; respondents' post-determination occupation is trespass.
Property law – Lease determination and re-entry – Registration of Titles Act – Protection of bona fide purchasers – Requirement and burden to plead and strictly prove fraud – Possession and trespass – Mesne profits – Proof of special damages in counter-claim.
|
Judgment |
31 May 1996 |
|
Defendant vicariously liable for negligent dangerous overtaking; plaintiff awarded special and general damages.
* Motor vehicle accidents – negligent overtaking on a sharp corner – liability for resultant collision. * Vicarious liability – master‑servant relationship established; owner responsibility despite unpaid instalments (Sale of Goods Ordinance). * Damages – proof required for special damages and reasonable assessment of general damages for personal injury. * Ex parte proceedings – court must ensure pleadings and evidence suffice to support judgment.
|
Judgment |
18 October 1995 |
|
Licence-holder deprived by municipal re-entry entitled to compensation; grantee must surrender title or pay shs.13,500,000 with interest.
Property law – municipal re-entry of licensed land – failure to give reasonable notice; Registration of Titles Act – conclusive certificate subject to constitutional protection against deprivation of property; entitlement to compensation for improvements; remedy: surrender of title or monetary compensation with interest and costs.
|
Judgment |
26 July 1994 |