TheLegalTalkUG

WHEN COURT AND COUNSEL CLASH: “AM I THE REGISTRAR?” Today at the Commercial Division, there was quite an exchange between counsel and the judge. Counsel had filed an application for stay of execution to restrain opposing counsel from implementing the decisions of the Registrar of Trademarks. Upon examining the application, the judge realised that the Notice of Motion had not been signed by the Registrar. The judge then asked counsel about the requirements for obtaining a stay of execution. Judge: There must be a pending appeal. Counsel: My Lord, there is one. Judge: But at the moment, there is none, because your Notice of Motion is not signed, and there is no order granting leave to appeal attached. I must admit, I liked counsel's response. Counsel: My Lord, you are mistaken. This is an appeal as of right. I do not require leave to appeal. The judge concedes Judge: Okay. But your Notice of Motion has not been endorsed by the Registrar. That does not constitute the filing of a sufficient appeal to satisfy the requirements for a stay of execution. Counsel: My Lord, if this were the manual filing system, the document would have been signed. Judge: Yesterday, I dismissed an application on that very ground. I am therefore warning you. Counsel: The good thing, My Lord, is that the matter is before you. It was assigned to you. We even wrote letters requesting that the documents be endorsed. Judge: It seems you are not understanding. Counsel: No, My Lord. That is not my mistake. The Court ought to have endorsed the document. Judge: Am I the Registrar? Counsel: But, My Lord, the matter is before— Judge: So, you are arrogant! Counsel: My Lord, we did what was required of us, but the Court did not do what it was supposed to do. The application was subsequently allocated a hearing date. Had this been the manual filing system, the document would have been endorsed and signed by the registrar. At that point, the judge stood up and marched out of the courtroom. Sometimes, the courtroom is not just about the law; it is also about procedure, personalities, and the delicate art of managing the bench. Perhaps counsel should have sought a validation or an extension given the circumstances. BOTTOM LINE: CALMNESS IS CRUCIAL ON BOTH ENDS.

A matter filed on the 3rd September 2026 against @JudithNabakoob1, @GovUganda through the #AttorneyGeneral and the @ministry_lands through #CommissionerofLands has been scheduled to be heard on the 14th Dec 2026. Several declarations are sought for.

You realize I didn't capture employment aspects/decisions in the summary quoted and that's because employment issues have had quite a number of interesting decisions - this is what has happened so far this year in employment Law. The sharpest disputes (as always) concern where a claim may be brought and what a successful claimant receives. On forum, Maga v UMSC [2026] UGHC 225 dismissed an unfair termination suit for want of jurisdiction, holding that s.91 of the Employment Act sends such claims to a labour officer, yet Musaga v Makerere University [2026] UGHCCD 185 decided a suspension claim on its merits as an ordinary suit. Mwase v Total Energies [2026] UGHCCD 214 refused judicial review to a private-sector employee, directing him to the labour route. The Industrial Court’s own status also remains unclear: Opiyo v Plan International [2026] UGIC 10 described it as having concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court, while Kisembo v Cairo International [2026] UGIC 87 held that it has no original jurisdiction and cannot transfer suits to itself from the Magistrates’ Courts. Public employees faced similar uncertainty: Banyenzaki v Attorney General [2026] UGHC 103 treated a cancelled appointment as a private contractual dispute unsuited to judicial review, but Turyasigura v Attorney General [2026] UGHCCD 274 quashed a contract officer’s termination and Anaku v Terego DLG [2026] UGHC 1347 ordered reinstatement and payment of withheld salaries. On limitation, Tusiime Doreen v KCCA [2026] UGSC 35 held that time does not run while an illegality continues, which sits uneasily with Kibuuka v UETCL [2026] UGHCCD 147, where a late application failed despite the pursuit of internal remedies. In Coffee Marketing Board v NUCCPTE [2026] UGSC 32, the Supreme Court held that awards under the repealed Trade Disputes Act were final, but left open whether judicial review ever reaches the Industrial Court. Kizza Mark v Attorney General [2026] UGCC 5 upheld the Employment Act’s probation provisions against a fair hearing challenge. Employers faced stricter scrutiny of process and proof. Muleme v Absa [2026] UGIC 81 found a justified dismissal unlawful because witness statements were withheld and the employee’s representative was restricted, while Aliama v ZOA Uganda [2026] UGIC 105 required a documented, participatory performance plan before dismissal for poor performance and warned counsel about possible AI-generated citations. Bamusonighe v UEGCL [2026] UGIC 70 marked the limit of this protection, holding that an employer with sole discretion need give neither reasons nor a hearing before declining to renew a fixed-term contract. Remedies remain unsettled. Kabuye v Africa 2000 Network [2026] UGIC 109 awarded UGX 38.5 million in severance for a procedurally unfair but justified dismissal, whereas Muleme awarded none on a similar finding. Caltex v Asiimwe [2026] UGCA 168 limited general damages to one month’s notice value while substituting aggravated damages of UGX 40 million and UGX 30 million. Nyende v Shoprite [2026] UGIC 40 found no unfair termination after a business sale, yet still awarded 45 employees UGX 510.9 million in severance at one month’s salary for each year worked. All these decisions can be found @Uganda_LII

#LEGALALERT Can a Licensee or caretaker of land /their children acquire rights to land by Adverse Possession through long occupation ?

#LEGALALERT Can a Licensee or caretaker of land /their children acquire rights to land by Adverse Possession through long occupation ?

This morning at the Office of the National Chairman in Nakasero, I was honoured to receive Hon. Justice Dr. Singiza Douglas Karekona, Chairperson of Uganda’s Judicial Service Commission, on a courtesy call. Justice Singiza warmly endorsed Gen. @mkainerugaba for President of Uganda. A powerful affirmation of the vision we share for a stronger, more just nation

Arapmwoko Emmanuel v Uganda Wildlife Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 44 of 2022) [2026] UGHC 1317 (19 October 2026) UWA game rangers shot the applicant, making UWA vicariously liable, and the court awarded special, general and punitive damages totaling UGX 160,877,500, plus costs. 👉:ulii.org/en/akn/ug/judgment/… @ntvuganda @NBSBreakingNews @DailyMonitor @UGIndependent @newvisionwire @CanaryMugume @Sudhirntv @SimonKaggwaNjal @wekesa_amos @mildredtuhaise