Solomon McWeiss

Lawyer, Sports fanatic, former Tv & Radio Sports personality.

[⚖️ TriteLaw🇺🇬 @TriteLawUG]

Nabakooza J Dismisses Mandatory Injunction Application after striking out Affidavits Not personally sworn by Applicant✍️During cross-examination, the Applicant told court that he did not know the word temporary injunction✍️ that it was his lawyer who wrote his name on the Affidavit in support, Affidavit in rejoinder and supplementary Affidavit.

Representation.
Applicant: Counsel Kakeeto Siraj
Respondent: Counsel Hudson Ssegamwenge and Counsel Ssemagulu Saava

Case link: https://t.co/pari0Qi4Hm

[Solomon McWeiss @SolomonMcWeiss]

@josedablogga Dead 💀

[⚖️ TriteLaw🇺🇬 @TriteLawUG]

Justice Ssekana(as then was) ✍️ Police does not take directives from the complainants and once they have taken over the complaint they become wholly responsible for their actions✍️ they are never agents of the complainants

✍️Police role in an arrest is that of an aggrieved party who complains to police and whatever is done by the police is supposed to be in accordance with the powers of police as granted by the Constitution.

✍️once police is not given credible evidence in any matter the file would be closed for luck of evidence.

✍️Alternatively, if the complaint is frivolous or baseless without cogent evidence such complainant can be charged with giving police false information.

✍The plaintiff was awarded UGX 10 million after being detained beyond the constitutional 48-hour limit. The State was held liable for false imprisonment and was ordered to pay both general and punitive damages.

Case link: https://t.co/pGRQgDRRxz

[Uganda Legal Information Institute @Uganda_LII]

Uganda v Kisekka Daniel Kiwanuka and Others (HCT-00-ICD-SC-0005-2025) [2026] UGHCICD 1 (3 July 2026)

Prima facie murder proved and accused put to defence; terrorism charge dismissed for lack of intent to influence or intimidate
👉:https://t.co/Vl6diQlvLZ

[Andrew Mukhoma @mukhomaandrew]

Can loan interest incurred by the plaintiff be claimed as special damages?

Justice Stephen Mubiru in TrustVenturs (U)Ltd V Power Foam (U) Ltd CS No 0669/2017,
The interest paid on a loan could potentially be recoverable as damages if it can be shown that the need to borrow 1/3

[Bill Joseph @ainerugaba]

Mabirizi was well ahead of his time! Much respect! 🫡

[⚖️ TriteLaw🇺🇬 @TriteLawUG]

Gidudu J 4-7-2024✍️In democracies, political leaders are not immune from prosecution. If it was not such, a country would descend into corruption & impunity✍️President is given temporary immunity whilst in office but after vacating office criminal charges can be slapped against.

[⚖️ TriteLaw🇺🇬 @TriteLawUG]

On 27th-March-2026,  Justice Rubagumya set aside a Warrant of Arrest for failure to serve a Notice to Show Cause why execution should not issue ✍️Where a Decree Is more than one year old, service of the Notice Is mandatory even If the Judgment Debtor excluded themselves from the Hearing in the Original Suit. 

✍Relying on Standard Chartered Bank Uganda Limited v Gian Singh Bhambra, HCMA No. 32 of 2022, the Court emphasized that a Notice to Show Cause affords a judgment debtor an opportunity to be heard before the Court's coercive powers are invoked to enforce a decree, thereby promoting the right to a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995.

✍Court rejected the respondent's contention that service of the Notice to Show Cause was unnecessary because the applicants had excluded themselves from the hearing in the original suit.

✍Citing COMESA Technology (U) Limited v David G. Mushabe, H.C. Execution Civil Appeal No. 1906 of 2013, as approved in Buwembo Sarah Kakumba v Samuel Kiwanuka & Another, H.C. Execution Civil Appeal No. 1670 of 2013, the Court reiterated that a warrant of arrest must always be preceded by a Notice to Show Cause and that only upon default may a warrant issue without first hearing the judgment debtor. This requirement gives effect to the cardinal rule of natural justice that no person should be condemned unheard.

✍Accordingly, since it was undisputed that the applicants had not been served with a Notice to Show Cause before the warrant of arrest in execution dated 29 September 2025 was extracted, the Court held that the warrant was irregular and set it aside.

Legal Representation:
1. Applicants:  M/s Kavuma Kabenge & Co. Advocates.

2.Respondent:  M/s Lipton Advocates.

Case link; https://t.co/B5Z9k7v90t

[Lawpoint Uganda @Lawpointuganda]

What does the doctrine Void-For Vagueness mean in statutory interpretation?

The void-for-vagueness doctrine which recently featured on Page 21 of MONICA KALYEGIRA MUGENYI, JSC in the recent supreme court judgement of Attorney General v Kabaziguruka (Constitutional Appeal 2 of 2021) [2025] UGSC 1 (31 January 2025) is rooted in the principle of legality, which demands that laws be clear and precise.

This constitutional doctrine requires that penal statutes define criminal offenses with sufficient specificity so that ordinary individuals can understand what conduct is prohibited. Additionally, laws must be drafted in a manner that prevents arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

This principle was articulated in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), where the United States Supreme Court struck down a statute that failed to provide clear guidelines for enforcement, thereby violating due process.

MONICA KALYEGIRA MUGENYI, JSC observed
Similarly, in Uganda, courts have ruled against vague legislative provisions. For example, in Francis Tumwesige Ateenyi v. Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No. 36 of 2018, and Andrew Karamagi & Another v. Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 2016, laws that lacked precise definitions were deemed unconstitutional for their vagueness.

Based on this principle, Section 117(1)(h) of the UPDF Act lacks the required clarity and specificity, making it unconstitutional under the void-for-vagueness doctrine.

[⚖️ TriteLaw🇺🇬 @TriteLawUG]

On 7 March 2006, in the rape trial of Dr. Kiiza Besigye, Justice Katusi in Uganda v Kiiza Besigye, Criminal Session No. 149/2005, at page 5, cited with approval R v Golden (1960) 1 W.L.R. 1169 for the principle that✍Where a witness is shown to have made a previous statement inconsistent with his evidence given at the trial... the previous statement, whether sworn or unsworn, does not constitute evidence upon which it can act.

Legal Representation:
Prosecution: Mr. Byabakama Mugenyi (then Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions).

Defence: Mr. Mpanga.

Case: https://t.co/2lKCJEUf2l⁠

[⚖️ TriteLaw🇺🇬 @TriteLawUG]

@SpireJim @JessicaKisakye https://t.co/HitPiEWPKQ

[Africa First @AfricaFirsts]

By 1879, Uganda 🇺🇬 was the only place in the world where C-section were performed to save both mother and baby.

European observers documented this practice, which used local tools, herbal anesthetics, & antiseptics.

[Lawpoint Uganda @Lawpointuganda]

High Court Affirms That Strict Proof of Long-Term Occupancy is Required to Establish a Kibanja Interest–Mere textual similarities do not constitute judicial misconduct

The High Court upheld the principle that an individual claiming a Kibanja interest in land must provide strict proof of long-term occupancy. The ruling reaffirms the legal position that mere assertions of occupation are insufficient to establish legitimate interests under the Land Act.

Facts
The appellant, Lubuuka David, appealed against the judgment of the Chief Magistrate of the Chief Magistrates Court of Entebbe, delivered on September 7, 2022, in favor of the respondent.

In the lower court, the respondent sued the appellant for trespass, seeking a declaration that the land (FRV409 Block 269 Plots 398 and 397) belongs to him, an order for vacant possession, general damages, and costs. The respondent claimed he lawfully acquired the land from Uganda Company (Holding) Ltd in 2002 and 2004, had it transferred to his name, and found the appellant trespassing in 2012. The appellant allegedly requested recognition as a tenant, which was denied.

The appellant, in his defense and counterclaim, asserted he had purchased Kibanja rights in 1998 and later sought to acquire Mailo interest. He alleged fraud by the respondent in including part of his land in the title without his knowledge. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering vacant possession, awarding UGX 20,000,000 in general damages, and costs. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the appellant filed this appeal.

Mere textual similarities do not constitute judicial misconduct
Holding
The appellant alleged that the trial Chief Magistrate improperly involved third parties in writing the judgment, thereby compromising judicial independence.

The Court, however, ruled that mere similarity between judicial reasoning and submissions of a party does not constitute proof of judicial misconduct or bias.

The Court further held that judicial officers are permitted to adopt well-reasoned arguments provided they independently assess the evidence Article 128(1) of the Constitution of Uganda.

The Court emphasized that for an appellate court to interfere with a lower court’s decision on grounds of judicial impropriety, there must be clear and convincing evidence of misconduct, beyond mere textual similarities in the judgment.

Implications
This decision reinforces the principle that judicial officers can incorporate arguments from parties as long as independent reasoning is demonstrated. It also sets a high threshold for proving third-party interference in judicial decisions, ensuring that allegations of judicial bias require substantial evidence.

Strict Proof of Long-Term Occupancy is Required to Establish a Kibanja Interest
The court emphasized that for one to claim an interest in land, he or she must demonstrate that the interest was lawfully acquired from someone who previously had an interest or title thereto. Relying on Ojwang v Wilson Bagonza CACA No. 25 of 2002, the court held that a claimant must show a valid chain of ownership.

The Appellant’s reliance on Kibanja claims under the Land Act was deemed misplaced as there was no proof that the alleged predecessors in title, Faith Kizza and Naziru Nsubuga, satisfied the statutory requirements of bona fide occupancy.

There was no evidence to support the claim that the appellant or his predecessors had occupied the land for twelve years before the 1995 Constitution, or that they were settled on the land by the government.

Read the full case
https://t.co/eE5hP2k8rf

[Benjamin Oteng Israel @OtengBenjamin10]

Courts Are Not Fishing Boats. Litigation Must Be About Rights, Not Fishing Expeditions.

The industrial court observed,

“The Auditor General cannot be joined to a suit purely as a tool for discovery or as a 'fishing expedition' to gather evidence against the primary defendant... If we took that approach, it would be... 'trawling aimlessly in an unlimited sea…..”

This decision renders a powerful reminder that joinder is not a substitute for evidence. A party will not be added to proceedings merely to help another party build its case. Before seeking joinder, a litigant must establish a recognizable cause of action and demonstrate that the proposed party is necessary for the effectual and complete determination of the dispute.

Semakula Peter & 7 Others v Uganda & 2 Others, Industrial Court Misc. Application No. 158 of 2025.
#Civilproceedings #Labourlawproceedings

[⚖️ TriteLaw🇺🇬 @TriteLawUG]

20-2-2015,Musoke J✍️awarded 500M in damages to a mother due to negligence of medics at Mulago Hosp that caused brain damage to the baby✍️a doctor is liable 4 medical negligence where they fall below the standard of reasonable care,Not merely because they made an error of judgment

[Lawpoint Uganda @Lawpointuganda]

A plea bargaining creates an agreement between the prosecutor and the accused, with all the features of an agreement of contract law

[Lawpoint Uganda @Lawpointuganda]

When imposing the sanction of suspension of a student at an Institution

[Uganda Legal Information Institute @Uganda_LII]

Ngabirano Moses & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2023) [2026] UGCA 204 (26 June 2026)

45‑year murder sentence overturned — identification unsafe after witness initially denied recognition; missing police report & absent investigator left reasonable doubt
👉:https://t.co/HqbtcfYzrs @nbstv @newvisionwire @DailyMonitor

[Lawpoint Uganda @Lawpointuganda]

High Court Finds Port Bell Supermarkets Limited Unable to Pay Its Debts and Clarifies that a Creditors' Resolution under Section 150 Automatically Deems Shareholders to Have Resolved to Liquidate under Section 154 of the Insolvency Act Cap 108.

The Court observed that administration is a statutory rescue mechanism, not an open-ended protective regime. Its continuation is justified only while there remains a realistic prospect of achieving at least one of the three objectives under s. 142(1)(b) of the Insolvency Act. Once all three objectives are demonstrably unattainable, the legal basis for maintaining administration ceases, and transition to liquidation becomes appropriate.

Read more
https://t.co/ssTTpPyqzz