Markcassper

Footballer, Catholic, SHACK OB ,

[JAY @Jay30BG4eva]

What’s stopping you from recreating this?

[𝑮𝒓𝒐𝒐𝒗𝒚𝑪𝒐𝒓𝒏𝒆𝒓 @u_mtho]

Finding someone who can kiss is actually an underrated blessing

[Daily Monitor @DailyMonitor]

Why do I climax too quickly during sex?
"I recently got married, but I climax almost immediately whenever I have sex with my wife."
#MonitorUpdates
https://t.co/Ks3J0pwFoz

[KAPTULUM 🏀🇺🇬 @KaptulumAloy]

To all young women. 🤝

[Markcassper @Markcassper1]

@alfredntags Hahahah oooh Uganda

[General Assweto🍷🍾❤️ @Asswetooo]

As a man invest in yourself first before anyone. Women don't care about the sacrifices you make for them, what they care about it themselves and what they are benefitting from you.

[Uganda Legal Information Institute @Uganda_LII]

M/S Muwema & Co. Advocates v Downtown Investments Ltd (Civil Application No. 0844 of 2026) [2026] UGCA 238 (11 August 2026)

Court granted partial stay pending appeal, requiring US$100,000 security, but declined to reverse already effected eviction

👉:https://t.co/oDppT9dcSY

[Duke Of Benin @ObaEdo_1]

Good night y'all
Sweet dreams

[SON OF LOYOLA @FERDINANDIUS]

Breakfast, Lunch and Transport are basic needs of a young lawyer

[Tibzkarts @tibzkarts2]

Give it time please!

My little sister had her kukyala two months ago, she dropped this video in the family WhatsApp group and immediately exited.

The aunties in there are fuming! 🙌🏼😂

[Uganda Legal Information Institute @Uganda_LII]

Nakku Joweria v Stanbic Bank (U) Limited (Civil Suit No. 197 of 2024) [2026] UGCommC 368 (3 August 2026)

Bank not liable for unauthorised Flexipay withdrawals where customer’s credentials were compromised and loss not promptly reported
👉:https://t.co/mAjZSpgyEo

[Uganda Legal Information Institute @Uganda_LII]

Dei Industries International Ltd and Others v Equity Bank Uganda Ltd and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1121 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 362 (29 July 2026)

Application to revoke ICPAU-nominated auditor dismissed as moot; independence not proved and amendment refused
👉:https://t.co/pL2GEh3gMr @newvisionwire @ntvuganda @nbstv @Sambannz @Mariat987 @bruno_akampa

[𝙏𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙗𝙧𝙚𝙚𝙯𝙚 @Twilightmoon4u]

Sobhita 💗

[Lu chi @Wonderfulbanta]

May everyone find a love that makes this kind of kiss feel effortless ❤️.

[Uganda Legal Information Institute @Uganda_LII]

National Unity Platform v Attorney General and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 260 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 215 (13 July 2026)

An administrative directive implementing a statutory funding condition was lawful; judicial review cannot override clear statutory requirements
👉:https://t.co/Zqf4kNMsb3 @DaudiKabanda @TusiimeSheila @newvisionwire @nbstv @BalaamBarugahar

[Uganda Law Society @ug_lawsociety]

Silence of “The Lawyer’s Lawyer” Screams Loud: Open Letter to the Radical New Bar

Distinguished Colleagues,

MEA CULPA.

The man who called himself “The Lawyer’s Lawyer” while seeking to represent us on the 7th Judicial Service Commission no longer speaks for this Bar.

On 15 June 2026, a UPDF commando unit stormed the home of our brother, Senior Advocate Ssalongo Hajji Erias Lukwago, former Lord Mayor and iconic defender of the Constitution, and abducted him. State impunity, in broad daylight, broadcast live for maximum psyop effect.

“The Lawyer’s Lawyer” apparently saw nothing, heard nothing, and said nothing. His unforgivable silence screams loud.

In the euphoria of the September 28 Revolution, we set out to build structures of hope. We reached out to the more humane elements among regime sympathizers, seeking middle ground for the future of our noble profession.

Instead, we nearly traded the integrity of the Bar for transactional gain.

Having learned this, we issued Executive Order RNB No. 6 of 2025, proclaiming the end of performative professional neutrality in an era of militarized politics.

The Uganda Law Society, under the Radical New Bar Governing Council, is no longer neutral.

There is no neutrality in a militarized state.

I regret my attempt to serve as a bridge-builder between defenders of the rule of law and the Doubting Thomases, “pragmatists,” and fence-sitters. That attempt at an alliance has failed. I disassociate completely. I was wrong to associate with Elison Karuhanga @elisonk.

Neutrality Fallacy

Karuhanga and I have not spoken since Boxing Day 2025. He called me at 4:30pm East African Time. We spoke for 49 minutes.

He told me he was under immense pressure from undisclosed quarters to publicly disassociate from the RNB after Executive Order No. 6 of 2025.

I failed to persuade him not to issue that apology for a neutral Bar.

After all, the role of the Judicial Service Commission is to select the best and brightest among us, grounded in the truth that the Judiciary is the guardian of constitutionalism, and to place them in an environment worthy of that duty.

The Radical New Bar selects its representative to the Judicial Service Commission on one basis: that the person is themselves qualified to understand this.

The fact that Karuhanga can now be found preaching “neutrality” in the middle of a military coup on the Constitution proves he has been misrepresenting us. And misleading himself.

He subsequently parted ways with the RNB in a cowardly op-ed published in the New Vision, insisting the Uganda Law Society “should remain neutral” while people were being abducted and military officers glorified impunity on X.

This was never about doctrine. The fracture laid bare the real fault line between us: the temptation of proximity to Establishment power versus the Bar’s sacred duty to the wananchi and the rule of law.

Where was the robust defense of professional sanctity by "The Lawyer’s Lawyer” when one of our own was dragged away, tortured, and brazenly mocked by the UPDF Chief of Defence Forces?

Selective muteness in the face of tyranny is not neutrality; it is complicity dressed in procedural robes.

Bridge-Building Fallacy

For years, regime apologists have told us: “The problem is that we have not built strong enough bridges between the people, the wananchi, and the military-dynasty, the establishment.”

That notion is wrong. Power in Uganda is not a conversation or a fair debate between equals. It is the gun versus the law.

Associating with elites and careerists deeply embedded as strategists for CDF Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba and allied military networks hellbent on subverting the Constitution was not bridge-building. It was an invitation to co-option.

In hindsight, it was misguided optimism bordering on hubris.

Bridges imply reciprocity and shared foundations. What we face today is not a river to cross but a fortress that extracts loyalty while offering sinecures.

”The Lawyer’s Lawyer” easily found his voice for a New Vision op-ed on neutrality, and for extraordinarily detailed analysis on Spaces on X.

He has yet to find it to defend the inviolability of the Bar after the Chief of Defence Forces called for its destruction on 15 June 2026.

His silence screams loud.

Why?

The dynasty does not seek partnerships; it seeks instruments. We erred in imagining otherwise.

Therefore, RNB must break from illusions of access. Our duty is to the wananchi, to the rule of law, and to the Republic.

A dictatorship is a raincloud that will soak everyone. Even those seeking shelter under the roof of the Dictator will be washed out by the subsequent  floodwaters that will find them there.

Either be firm in the struggle, or don’t join it. This is not a career path.

We ask for the prayers and support of all steadfast lawyers, and the wananchi, that we do not make the Karuhanga mistake again.

Isaac K. Ssemakadde, SC
Your Exiled Leader

#ResistLawlessness #LawyersStrike26June
#ULSAt70 #FreeAllPoliticalPrisoners
#BangTheTable #BackOnTrack #RNBVision2060

@ntvuganda @nbstv @nilepostnews @ubctvuganda @newvisionwire @observerug @ugandarn @mkainerugaba

[The Observer @observerug]

High court rules: After 180 days on remand without trial, bail becomes mandatory

In two separate rulings, justice Paul Gadenya Wolimbwa held that courts are constitutionally obliged to grant bail to accused persons who have spent more than 180 days on remand without their cases being committed to the High court for trial.

He said the gravity of the offences and the apprehended risk of flight cannot defeat the entitlement to be released.

"It was parliament, not the courts, that found the earlier threshold too generous to the state and too indulgent of delay, and shortened it to 180 days. A provision deliberately tightened in this way is not one a court should approach as though it retained an unspoken discretion to relax it again by another route. Parliament has already weighed the gravity of capital and High-court-only offences...” he ruled.

Furthermore, he said asking the bail applicant to prove a fixed place of abode by producing a certificate of title or utility bills asks more of him than the law requires as neither the Constitution nor the Bail Guidelines requires an applicant to own the home in which he lives.

https://t.co/YDJhfGvT0J

[Benjamin Oteng Israel @OtengBenjamin10]

Can a Company Escape Liability Simply Because There Was No Written Contract? The High Court Says No.

"The 'writing' envisaged does not require a formal written contract. This requirement is satisfied by any writing that reasonably identifies the subject matter of the contract, is sufficient to indicate that a contract exists, and states with reasonable certainty the material terms of the contract. It can be a receipt or a formal letter."

The decision in Jan Mohammed Enterprises Ltd v Prism Construction Ltd (2026) is another significant reminder that commercial reality often prevails over technical objections.

The Defendant argued that because there was no formal written contract for the supply of building materials exceeding UGX 500,000, the Plaintiff could not enforce its claim. The High Court rejected that argument.

Instead, the Court examined the parties' conduct: delivery notes, invoices, ledger accounts, payment records, a security cheque, and evidence that the materials were delivered and received at the Defendant's construction site. Collectively, these documents established the existence of a binding contractual relationship.
In particular, the court held,

"A director of a company has ostensible authority to act on the company's behalf by virtue of their appointment to the board of directors..."

This reinforces the indoor management rule. A company cannot readily deny liability where its own director and employees created the appearance of authority and induced a third party to transact. Outsiders are entitled to rely on that apparent authority without investigating the company's internal approvals.

Lessons for commercial lawyers and businesses are clear:

1. Performance can validate an otherwise informal agreement.

2. Companies must carefully supervise those who negotiate and receive goods on their behalf because apparent authority can bind the company.

#ContractLaw #CompanyLaw #ConstructionLaw

[Bill Joseph @ainerugaba]

Once again, Mabirizi was ahead of his time!

[Zlatan Ibrahimović @Ibra_official]

The studio will never forget