Arcadia Advocates

Arcadia Advocates A top tier law firm offering "more than legal business" whilst journeying with clients as they achieve excellence with integrity.


Supreme Court: "...Counsel who appear before courts and especially before appellate courts should take care to show relevancy, pertinence, precision and adequate research."


Court of Appeal: "...this Court is inclined to believe the appellant that the loss of the Court record could have impeded him from applying for leave to file a notice of appeal out of time. An Application for leave to file a notice of appeal out of time requires an applicant to be in position of lodging a memorandum of appeal."


Court of Appeal: "We accordingly, set aside the conviction and sentence of 50 days imprisonment of the appellant for the offence of murder c/s 188 and 189 on the ground that the trial court record of the High Court at Kampala...went missing. We order for a retrial of the appellant..."


Court of Appeal: "Before we take leave of this appeal, we express our great disappointment to the fact that all the Court proceedings of the trial in this case went missing without a trace. There must be an evil hand of corruption behind this."


High Court: "...a single illegal practice or election offence under the PEA, once proved, by the Petitioner, to the satisfaction of the court, suffices to prove a ground for setting aside an election. The weight or significance of the bribe would not matter as long as it is proved..."


High Court: " It is expected that evidence in elections will come from partisan witnesses since the reality is that in an election, the populace is called upon to take one side or other other. They are not neutral. This does not mean that the evidence is not credible on that count alone. However the courts have cautioned against relying on such evidence without corroboration..."


Court of Appeal:"...the appellant was deprived of his properties in a manner tainted with illegality. He was using the suit properties for commercial purposes in the apartments and hostel. He was therefore deprived of financial earnings from them. The appellant resided on one of the suit properties in Bweyogerere where he was evicted forcefully. All these events made the appellant suffer emotionally and economically. This entitles him to an award of general damages. I consider the sum of Shs. 50,000,000 as sufficient to compensate him..."


Court of Appeal: "Although the 2nd respondent did not claim for the Shs. 170,000,000 which the appellant acknowledged as having received as a loan, it is just and equitable that the appellant refunds this sum of money to the 2nd respondent."


Court of Appeal: "...were title is good title, the cheated stamp duty can be reported to and investigated by the tax authority and the Commissioner General of URA can thereafter collect the cheated stamp duty or shortfall in the said tax."


Court of Appeal: "I am alive to the fact that no loan agreement exists on record. Be that as it may, after scrutinising the evidence as a whole, it appears to me that the appellant signed the land sale agreement, transfer forms and powers of Attorney with the sole understanding that the transaction that the transaction that he was entering in the 1st and 2nd respondents was a loan transaction. The suit properties and documents he signed were only meant to act as security should he have failed to repay the loan."


Court of Appeal: "In the absence of evidence that the parties intended to be legally bound contractually to the sale and transfer, Court should be reluctant in deciding that the executed documents formed the basis of a legal contractual relationship. the exigencies of every day life such as the need for money to pay medical bills, schools fees which cause temporary indisposition make it most unlikely that either party contemplated that one was legally bound to confer transfer of such security."


Supreme Court: "A declaration doth issue that the 2nd respondent (Bank of Uganda) is in contempt of court orders."


Supreme Court: "In the present case, the contempt by the 2nd respondent relates to conduct which perverts the course of justice. The attempt at circumvention of the decision of the Court of Appeal by altering the status of the 1st respondent from Crane Bank (in receivership) to Crane Bank (in liquidation) was in our view aimed at impeding or perverting the course of justice before this court and the same amounted to contempt."


Supreme Court: "Contempt of court consists of conduct which interferes with the administration of justice or impedes or perverts the course of justice...Civil contempt consists of a failure to comply with a judgement or order or a court or breach of undertaking of court."


Supreme Court: "It seems to us therefore that anything done by the Central Bank in bad faith opens it up to litigation and legal proceedings."


Supreme Court: "The act of the 2nd respondent (BoU) changing the status of the 1st respondent from Crane Bank (in receivership) to crane bank (In liquidation) would be to render the questions before court in the main appeal moot and nugatory."


Supreme Court: "Not being subject to the direction or control of any person or authority in the performance of its functions does not mean that the 2nd respondent (Bank of Uganda) cannot sue or be sued. Such a conclusion would be reading too much into the clear provisions of the Constitution..."


Constitutional Court: "No one, not even the BOU can be shielded from being answerable to the dictates of justice."


Constitutional Court: "Given that, the BoU's directives to freeze a person's accounts have a bearing on the constitutional right to property, it is vital in safeguarding those rights that courts retain the power to scrutinise the actions of Bank of Uganda on their merits."


Constitutional Court: "Even where interference with the right to property is allowed under a law in this case the ACA, such an interference must be in pursuance of legitimate aim and necessary in a democratic society. Under the constitution the interference must be acceptable and justifiable in a free and democratic society."


Constitutional Court: "In order to be effective, the orders made under section 34 of the ACA must be made without undue delay because the property may be moved or dissipated in short period of time so as to make it unavailable to the court on conviction of the suspects."


Constitutional Court: "No one, not even the BoU can be shielded from being answerable to the dictates of justice..."


Constitutional Court: "...there is a legitimate expectation on the part of members of the public requiring that those who have been implicated in corruption are prevented from earning from the crime. The public expects that, as a means of combating corruption, ill-gotten property will be returned to the national pursue once the suspect is convicted..."


Constitutional Court: "By mandate granted in Article 133 (1) (b) of the Constitution the Chief Justice under Legal Notice No.9 of 2009 established the Anti-Corruption Division as an administrative division of the High Court and not as a special court envisaged under Article 232 (2) (e) of the Constitution..."


High Court: "The bank must have disclosed where the money came from before the State concluded that it was a criminal source. You don't need a year to put that evidence together unless you are not serious."


High Court: "This song of "investigations are incomplete" is not itself sufficient cause to warrant an adjournment. The prosecution is obligated to inform court of vital steps taken to complete investigations before the court can decide if an adjournment is merited or not."


Court of Appeal: "Having acted in breach of those agreements, the Respondents could not claim general and mesne profits from the appellants."


Court of Appeal: The mere existence of a suit in itself does not as a matter of law prevent further dealings in mortgaged property.


Court of Appeal: "Where a mortgage expressly gave the mortgagee or the receiver express power to sell the mortgaged property by private treaty, the sale of the property by invoking such express powers was lawful."


Acacia Avenue, Kololo

Opening Hours

Monday 08:00 - 17:00
Tuesday 08:00 - 17:00
Wednesday 08:00 - 17:00
Thursday 08:00 - 17:00
Friday 08:00 - 17:00




Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Arcadia Advocates posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Arcadia Advocates:


Nearby law practices

Other Kampala law practices

Show All