Mateeka

Ugandan legal research that cites the actual Act and Section. Mateeka is now on iOS. Ask any question on Ugandan law and get an answer backed by the source — no scrolling through PDFs, no guessing. Built for lawyers, judges, students, and anyone who needs the law fast.

In Uganda, the appellate court’s role depends on which level of appeal you are at: - First appellate court: it hears the first appeal from the trial court and can re-examine both facts and law where the statute allows. For example, from a magistrate’s criminal trial, an appeal to the High Court may be “on a matter of fact as well as on a matter of law,” and the High Court has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of magistrates’ courts: s.203(2) Magistrates Courts Act, Cap. 19; s.16(1) Judicature Act, Cap. 16 - Second appellate court: usually reviews the decision of the first appellate court, and its role becomes narrower depending on the statute. In criminal appeals from the High Court, the Court of Appeal may confirm, vary or reverse the conviction, sentence, or acquittal: s.131(1)(c)(i)–(iii), (2) Trial on Indictments Act, Cap. 25; and for appeals generally it has all the powers of the original court for purposes of determining the appeal: s.11 Judicature Act, Cap. 16. - Third appellate court: this is not automatic in every case. In matters originating from a chief magistrate or magistrate grade I, a third appeal to the Supreme Court is allowed only on a certified question of law of great public or general importance, or where the Supreme Court considers it necessary in the interests of justice: s.5(5) Judicature Act, Cap. 16 (criminal); s.6(2) Judicature Act, Cap. 16 (civil). In short: the 1st appellate court re-evaluates the case most broadly, the 2nd appellate court mainly corrects the first appeal decision and may still confirm/vary/reverse, and the 3rd appellate court is exceptional and usually focuses on important questions of law: s.5, 6, 11, 16 Judicature Act, Cap. 16; s.131 Trial on Indictments Act, Cap. 25; s.203 Magistrates Courts Act, Cap. 19.

@askmateeka @askmateeka pliz I'am waiting for my answer.

Ugandan legal research that cites the actual Act and Section. Mateeka is now on iOS. Ask any question on Ugandan law and get an answer backed by the source — no scrolling through PDFs, no guessing. Built for lawyers, judges, students, and anyone who needs the law fast.

@charles_nt88738 Please use mateeka.com for any further research

Not safely, no. The Local Council Courts Act requires the court to keep a written record of proceedings, and that record must include the judgment or final orders; for town, division and subcounty local council courts, it must also record a separate summary of each witness’s evidence. See s.21(1), (3)(i) and (5) Local Council Courts Act, Cap. 18. The same Act also requires the record to include “the particulars of execution of the judgment, if any,” which shows execution is supposed to rest on an existing lawful court record under s.21(3)(k) Local Council Courts Act, Cap. 18. So if there was no written record of proceedings at all, execution is open to serious challenge because the court has not complied with the statutory basis for its judgment record under s.21 Local Council Courts Act, Cap. 18. The Act does not expressly say that every such execution is automatically void, but it gives a strong ground to oppose or appeal the judgment/order under s.31 and s.32 Local Council Courts Act, Cap. 18. For an LC court, “without undue regard to technical rules” does not excuse this, because that rule is expressly “[s]ubject to the provisions of this Act” in s.22 Local Council Courts Act, Cap. 18, and s.21 is one of those mandatory provisions. If you want, I can help you turn that into a short memorandum of appeal ground or objection wording.

Introducing mateeka.com a legal technology platform making Uganda’s legal framework accessible instantly, right from your Appstore . From laws to legal insights, access justice and legal information faster, smarter, and anywhere. NB: Android version coming soon. share.google/YiGjG93vAALpFD…

AI is not going to replace lawyers. It's going to replace lawyers who don't use AI.

Before we dive into this case, let's first appreciate Data Protection and Privacy in the realm of access to justice. @JudiciaryUG can do something closer to this.

Snippet from their conclusion

AI isn’t replacing lawyers, it’s becoming an “augmenting superpower” for those who learn to use it. Vanderbilt Law breaks down how AI is reshaping research, contracts, ethics and training the next generation of lawyers. Worth a read 👇 law.vanderbilt.edu/master-legal-s…

Very important that people know this. Especially in domains like law, where critical thinking by a human is very important. AI should be seen as a tool to help you!

No. The “no undue regard to technical rules of evidence or procedure” rule in s.22 Local Council Courts Act, Cap. 18 does not cancel the Act’s own mandatory record-keeping requirements. Section 22 itself begins with “Subject to the provisions of this Act,” and one of those provisions is s.21(5) Local Council Courts Act, Cap. 18, which says that in a town, division or subcounty local council court, “a summary of the evidence given by each person shall be recorded separately.” So failure to record each witness’s summary is not just a harmless technicality; it is non-compliance with a specific statutory duty under s.21(5) Local Council Courts Act, Cap. 18. That can therefore be a proper ground of appeal under s.31 and s.32 Local Council Courts Act, Cap. 18, especially because the Act also requires adherence to natural justice under s.23 Local Council Courts Act, Cap. 18, and the record is part of what allows an appellate court to review whether the hearing was fair. An appellate court may then receive additional evidence or hear the case afresh under s.33 Local Council Courts Act, Cap. 18. One important limit: s.21(5) specifically applies to town, division and subcounty local council courts. For village courts, the Act requires records of proceedings generally under s.21(2)–(3) Local Council Courts Act, Cap. 18, but s.21(5)’s separate witness-summary wording is not expressed in the same way. Legal information not advice

@askmateeka Can recording of each witness' summary of evidence be dis/ regarded as mere "un due regard to technical rules of evidence & procedure" & therefore not worth ground for appeal?

In simple terms: an LC court is supposed to write down what happened in the case and also write down its judgment. That is required by s.21(1)–(3) Local Council Courts Act, Cap. 18, and for some LC courts even a summary of the witnesses’ evidence must be recorded under s.21(5) Local Council Courts Act, Cap. 18. So if there is a “judgment” but no record of the case proceedings, that is not proper procedure under the law. It does not automatically mean the judgment is worthless in every situation, but it gives a strong reason to challenge it on appeal under s.31 and s.32(1)–(2) Local Council Courts Act, Cap. 18. Also, “locus standi” is not the right word here. “Locus standi” means the right of a person to bring a case. What you are really asking is whether the judgment is valid or binding. The short answer is: it may be challenged because the law requires a written record of proceedings under s.21 Local Council Courts Act, Cap. 18. Please note: this is legal information and not advise

@askmateeka Can a judgement of LC court with out record of proceeding be locus standi? Is such a judgement binding,legally,really?

@David_Kasozi We plan to have it out in about a month. We shall update as soon as we launch it

@askmateeka When is it available for androids

Here is what our agent says about this: Note: this is just legal information and not advise. Consult with a professional lawyer. No—if it is an ordinary civil money claim such as a debt, contract refund, conversion, damage to property, or trespass, an LC court’s jurisdiction is capped at **100 currency points**. Under the **Local Council Courts Act, Cap. 18**, those Schedule 2 matters may only be heard where “the value of the subject matter in dispute does not exceed one hundred currency points” — **s.9(2)(a) Local Council Courts Act, Cap. 18**; and Schedule 2 includes **debts** and **contracts** — **Schedule 2, Local Council Courts Act, Cap. 18**. So if **100 currency points = UGX 2,000,000**, an LC court should **not** determine a refund claim for **UGX 20,000,000** in that category: **s.9(2)(a) Local Council Courts Act, Cap. 18**. One exception: for matters under **customary law** in **Schedule 3**, the Act says jurisdiction “shall not be restricted by the monetary value” — **s.9(2)(b) Local Council Courts Act, Cap. 18**.

@askmateeka Can an LC court order a party to refund an amount over & above 2M shs(100 currecy points) e.g 20M?

@muwankaband Thanks for the kind words! We appreciate 🙏🏾

@askmateeka It's a nice product.

@moskyeyune 😅 Aba android tugenda bakolako soon enough! For now mubere nga mukozesa web version at app.mateeka.com!

@askmateeka Kati ffe aba android mutukoze mutya?!

@Petercleavers Yes we do 😊 Currently Mateeka can also be accessed via app.mateeka.com!

@askmateeka Quite a resourceful platform. Do we have a Desktop version?

@realkeithaj Thanks, Keith 😎

@askmateeka Cool

Yesss!!

@ealawsociety @ssbalaw @TanganyikaLaw @znzlawsociety @Rwanda_Bar @Burundibarassoc @LawSocietyofKe @ug_lawsociety Great initiative! AI when used correctly can increase efficiency and enable faster delivery of justice in East Africa! We are currently developing Mateeka, an AI based legal research assistant grounded on Ugandan Law!

“What if the real shift isn’t coming but is already here?” This morning’s session at the EALS AI Masterclass didn’t just introduce AI. It challenged everything we thought we knew about the future of legal practice. We heard it plainly: In 5 years, saying you run your practice without AI will sound as unthinkable as running it without the internet. The message was clear, the market will not wait. The future belongs to the one-person law firm and with the adoption of AI the lawyers can deliver services faster and cost effective But this isn’t just about automation. AI is eliminating layers, reshaping how work is done, and redefining what efficiency truly means. We unpacked practically how AI actually works from massive datasets and machine learning, to tokens, context windows, and why larger parameters matter. And maybe the biggest mindset shift of the day: (1) A good AI user doesn’t rely on one tool. (2 This is not about becoming an AI expert. It’s about knowing what’s possible and using it. Bottom line the future is now.

@0t7forreal You can purchase credits in packages starting from UGX 5k directly in the app or from the web app at app.mateeka.com

@askmateeka So how much? After the 25 credits