Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Mwerinde v Bunamwaya Central Masgid Limited & 6 Others (Miscellaneous Application 570 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCD 137 (30 August 2024)
The High Court granted a temporary injunction preserving the applicant’s role as Imam of Bunamwaya Central Masjid pending determination of the main cause.
Babirye Yudaya, Burhan Namanya &Hussein Simbwa v Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (Company Cause 2 of 2023) [2023] UGHC 231 (12 December 2023)
The High Court found unfair prejudice in the governance of UMSC, but declined winding up. It ordered a special General Assembly to review the council’s affairs.
Kamau v Amir and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCD 272 (10 December 2021)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case or a bona fide dispute warranting a temporary injunction. The evidence did not demonstrate that the respondents' actions were unlawful or that the applicant would suffer irreparable injury not compensable by damages. The court emphasized that the directors, as the directing mind and will of the company, were acting within their powers, and that company management disputes should be resolved internally before seeking judicial intervention. Granting the injunction would disrupt the company's operations and alter the statu…
Source excerpt
Wandera v Good Man Agencies Limited and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 680 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCD 274 (10 December 2021)
The High Court dismissed an application to review and set aside a consent variation order, holding that alleged forgery required strict proof in a substantive suit.
Mukasa & Another v East and Central Uganda Integrated Framers Association (ECUIFA) & Another (COMPANY CAUSE NO. 5 OF 2018) [2020] UGHCCD 114 (29 May 2020)
The High Court dismissed a petition to wind up a non-profit company limited by guarantee, finding the petitioners failed to prove oppression or mismanagement.
Rajesh Kumar v Mahmood Somani (Miscellaneous Cause No. 62 of 2018) [2019] UGCommC 232 (25 January 2019)
The court found that while the respondent's affidavit in reply was filed out of time and no plausible reason was advanced for the delay, rigid application of procedural timelines to affidavits should be tempered by judicial discretion. The court followed precedent that affidavits, as evidence, may be admitted if no irreparable prejudice is caused to the opposing party, and any inconvenience can be remedied by an appropriate order as to costs. The respondent demonstrated interest in defending the matter, and the applicant did not show that admitting the affidavit would cause injustice or preju…
Source excerpt
Ssenteza & Anor v Donnie Company Limited & Anor (HCT-00-CV-CI-0005-2016) [2016] UGHCCD 48 (20 June 2016)
The High Court struck out a minority shareholder petition against the bank and claims under section 247, allowing the unfair-prejudice claim to proceed under section 248.
Kalibbala v Kaggwa & 3 Ors (HCT-00-CV-MISC Appeal- 09 -2015) [2016] UGHCCD 45 (19 May 2016)
The court found that the interim order issued by the Deputy Registrar affected both the appellant and Chainlink Technology Ltd, a separate legal entity. The Deputy Registrar erred by failing to consider the preliminary objection regarding the company's right to legal representation and fair hearing. The freezing of the company's bank account without hearing its side of the story was unjust and unfair, as it could cripple the company as a going concern. The principles of natural justice and proper procedure under Order 41 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules were not observed. Consequently, the…
Source excerpt
Sam Sewanyana and Another v Nicholas Were (Civil Reference No. 79 of 2013) [2015] UGCA 2030 (15 January 2015)
The Court of Appeal set aside the Registrar’s interim orders in a company dispute, holding that there was no further status quo to preserve pending appeal.
Amrit Goyal v Hari Chand Goyal and Ors (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 438 of 2001) [2001] UGCommC 1 (1 March 2001)
The court held that the applicant, as a shareholder, had locus standi to seek an injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the management and assets of Roadmaster Cycles (U) Ltd. The applicant demonstrated interests beyond mere financial gain, such as maintaining the company's integrity and harmonious relations, which are incapable of quantification and cannot be adequately compensated by damages. The issues raised by the applicant were substantive and required a full trial on the merits, not summary determination at the interlocutory stage. The balance of convenience favor…
Source excerpt
Explore more
