Omara® 🇺🇬

I low key want to purchase this book. But !

MEET THE YOUNG LAWYER OF THE WEEK. GRIFFINS IAN ABUORA, one of our very own members from Kenya who passed his Advocates Training Program examinations.

One of the most interesting principles in #arbitration is that an arbitral tribunal can determine whether it has the jurisdiction to hear a dispute. This principle, often referred to as "Kompetenz-Kompetenz," empowers arbitrators to rule on questions concerning the existence, validity, or scope of an arbitration agreement. This helps to prevent delays and ensures that arbitration remains an efficient dispute resolution mechanism. Sometimes, the first question in a dispute is not who is right, but who has the authority to decide. #Arbitration #LetsVibeADR

Bachelor of Laws Research Paper on Regulating AI in Uganda’s Legal Profession #ArtificialIntelligence

Shumuk Aluminium Industries Ltd and Another v Bank of Baroda (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 138 of 2019) [2026] UGCommC 264 (2 June 2026) Bank lawfully recalled demand facilities after default; guarantor liable for UGX 6.36 billion and foreclosure stayed for non‑compliance with the Mortgage Act 👉:@2026-06-02" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">ulii.org/en/akn/ug/judg…

The amended Employment Act: What you need to know ⚖️ We break down the key changes and what they mean for workers and employers. #NTVTheLink

@Signumadvocates @hrmauofficial @mtnmomoug @CocaColaBevUg @ealawsociety @waswamosesk @PaulRugambwa @DukeofKyagaju @PrudentialUG @IndustrialCourt Congratulations on a successful event. However, is there an online recording of the event on YouTube? I personally would like to watch and follow up on what transpired during the event.

This Was an Extraordinary Conference 2026! Thank you to all our attendees, speakers, and sponsors. You made the entire event truly magical. Your participation, insights, and support contributed to its outstanding success. We are grateful for your commitment and for helping make this event a memorable experience for everyone. #LabourLawConf2026

The applicant, a national team captain, sought judicial review challenging disciplinary proceedings and sanctions imposed by the national rugby body, including a 24‑week suspension and removal from captaincy. The respondent raised four preliminary objections: the application was time‑barred, moot, that the Registered Trustees were not proper parties, and that the union was not amenable to judicial review. The court examined filings on ECCMIS and found the initial filing occurred within the three‑month statutory period; administrative reclassification did not render the application late. On mootness, the court observed that expiry of a finite sanction did not eliminate a live controversy where continuing effects (indefinite loss of captaincy and disciplinary records) could be remedied; thus the objection failed. The question whether the Registered Trustees were proper parties involved mixed fact and law and could not be resolved at the preliminary stage. Finally, the court found the union carried out public or quasi‑public functions (including regulation under the National Sports Act and receipt of public funds) and therefore was amenable to judicial review. All preliminary objections were overruled and the application will proceed to hearing on the merits; costs to abide the outcome.

Komakech v Otto and Anor (Election Petition No. 6 of 2016) [2016] UGHCEP 44 (8 June 2016) The Court held that under Article 15 of the Constitution and section 19 of the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control (Amendment) Act, 2009, acquiring foreign citizenship does not automatically result in loss of Ugandan citizenship 👉:@2016-06-08" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">ulii.org/en/akn/ug/judg…

The petitioner challenged the respondent’s election to Parliament on the ground that the respondent used Canadian passports and was therefore not a Ugandan citizen and unqualified to be nominated. The respondent relied on a Ugandan passport, voter location slip, voter registration number and affidavits asserting Ugandan citizenship by descent and dual citizenship. The Returning Officer’s affidavit confirmed the respondent’s voter registration and the poll results (respondent 14,281 votes; petitioner 2,959 votes). The court reviewed Article 15 of the Constitution and section 19 of the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control (Amendment) Act 2009, observing that acquiring foreign citizenship does not automatically revoke Ugandan citizenship. The petitioner's allegation that the respondent had been removed from any register of dual-citizenship holders was unsupported by documentary proof. The court took judicial notice that voter identification slips entitled holders to national identity cards and concluded the respondent remained a Ugandan citizen by descent. Applying the higher standard of proof required in election petitions, the court found the petitioner had not satisfied the court and dismissed the petition with costs.

The applicant applied for an administrative interim order restraining the respondent board from giving effect to its decision not to recommend renewal of the applicant’s CEO contract, pending determination of a main application. The respondents argued the applicant had suppressed facts, that the contract would imminently expire (making any preservatory order futile), and that interim relief could not amount to renewal of an executive function. The applicant sought an administrative order under procedural rules to protect his right to be considered for reappointment and requested time to respond to newly received material. The court examined its inherent powers under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and emphasized that such powers are exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. Finding that the contract had not yet expired and that preservation of the status quo was necessary to protect contractual rights pending adjudication, the court rejected the contention that the order would unlawfully renew the contract or paralyse the institution. The court accordingly issued an administrative order restraining implementation of the board’s decision, directed the filing of respondents’ affidavits by 01/06/2026, and scheduled the hearing for 01/06/2026 at 10:00 am.

The applicant applied for habeas corpus under Article 23 and related provisions, alleging abduction on 21 April 2026 by armed men (some in military uniform) who forced him into a Hiace vehicle; subsequent enquiries at several police stations failed to locate him. The supporting affidavit was deposed by the applicant’s wife based on information from a named witness. The respondents (primarily through the 4th respondent) denied custody, stating police records show no detention. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the affidavit was hearsay because the source witness had not sworn an affidavit. The court overruled the objection, finding the deponent had properly disclosed her source and distinguished knowledge from belief in line with Order 19 Rule 3. On the merits the court held that the unexplained and uncontroverted allegations, combined with unsuccessful tracing efforts and absence of any lawful process or charge, gave reasonable grounds to infer the applicant was held by agents of the respondents. The court therefore issued a writ of habeas corpus directing production of the applicant on 5 June 2026 at 11:00 am and made no order as to costs.

The Constitutional Court consolidated a petition and a reference challenging Section 11(2)(a)-(c) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, which mandates nullification of criminal trials and automatic acquittal where an accused's non-derogable rights are found to have been violated. Petitioners argued the provision unlawfully permits acquittal without trial and denies victims a fair hearing; the Attorney General and intervenors raised competing constitutional, policy and historical arguments. The Court analysed Articles 20, 28 and 44 of the Constitution, concluding Article 28's guarantee of a fair hearing applies to "a person" and therefore includes victims whose civil interests (for example compensation) are determined in criminal proceedings. The Court found Section 11(2) mandatory and incompatible with the presumption of innocence, the requirement of a full trial to adjudicate criminal charges, equality before the law, and the constitutional balance of accountability. It distinguished prior authority that addressed extreme systemic abuses as fact-specific. The Court declared Section 11(2)(a)-(c) unconstitutional to the extent it allows acquittal without a fair trial, preserved victims' right to a fair hearing, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.

Your employees are using AI for tasks you have not authorized them to use it for. If you do not have a way to detect this, you should develop one. @RKirunda speaks to participants in the employment space. #LabourLawConf2026

For context, watch this⚠️ #FreeAllPoliticalPrisoners

Vacancy Announcement- Associate Positions- JByamukama & Co. Advocates Position: Associates (2) JByamukama & Co. Advocates is inviting applications from suitably qualified, motivated, and career-driven Advocates to join our growing team. We are seeking professionals who are passionate about excellence and are interested in building a long-term career in Litigation and Corporate & Commercial Advisory Practice within a dynamic law firm environment. Minimum Requirements 1. Bachelor of Laws (LLB) Degree from a recognized institution. 2. Diploma in Legal Practice. 3. Enrolled Advocate of the High Court of Uganda. 4. Possession of at least two (2) valid Practising Certificates of the High Court of Uganda. 5. Demonstrated commitment to professional growth and development. 6. Previous law firm experience is strongly preferred. 7. Excellent legal research, drafting, analytical, and communication skills. 8. Strong interpersonal skills and ability to work both independently and within a team. 9. Exceptional writing, analytical, and communication abilities. 10. Superior organizational, interpersonal, networking, and time-management skills. 11. High standards of integrity, professionalism, teamwork and attention to detail. Key Responsibilities 1. Conduct legal research and prepare court pleadings, submissions, and legal opinions. 2. Represent clients before courts, tribunals, and other dispute resolution forums. 3. Attending hearings and assisting in litigation proceedings. 4. Preparing complex case evaluations, briefs, pleadings, motions, petitions, written submissions and other legal documents. 5. Manage case files and provide strategic litigation support. 6. Attend client meetings and provide legal guidance on contentious matters. 7. Draft and review commercial agreements and legal documentation. 8. Provide legal opinions and regulatory compliance advice. 9. Support corporate transactions, due diligence exercises, and advisory assignments. 10. Engage with clients on a broad range of commercial and corporate matters. 11. Working with clients, witnesses, experts, and other counsel. JByamukama & Co. Advocates offers an inclusive and welcoming culture as a core priority. We are committed to creating a supportive and professional working environment. By attracting, supporting, promoting and retaining highly qualified individuals of various backgrounds and experiences, we strengthen our ability to provide groundbreaking solutions, deliver exceptional client experience, and advance the professional development of our staff. We take an active approach to promoting opportunities for mentorship, learning, and career advancement. Equal Opportunities The Firm is an Equal Opportunity Employer. All applications shall be considered strictly on merit, competence, and suitability for the role. Application Procedure Interested candidates should submit their application letter, curriculum vitae, copies of academic and professional qualifications, and copies of their Practising certificates to: admin@jbyam.com. All documents should be merged in a single pdf document with Email subject of the Applicant’s Name and Position. Or hand deliver your application to JByamukama & Co. Advocates located at Plot 102, Kanjokya Street, Kamwokya, Kampala between 8:30am to 5:00pm. Applications should be submitted no later than Wednesday, 10th June 2026. Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted.

Following full disclosure by the prosecution, the defence applied for a constitutional reference on three procedural points: adequacy of seven days’ notice for a preliminary hearing under Article 28(3)(c); whether court directions permitting counsel access to accused on weekends/public holidays contravene Article 28(3)(c); and whether fixing trial dates before concluding a preliminary hearing is inconsistent with Articles 28 and 44. The trial judge reviewed the disclosure history (initial and subsequent disclosures in January and March and identity disclosure on 1 June 2026) and concluded the defence had sufficient materials to prepare. The judge found one week adequate for a preliminary hearing, noted existing prison exceptions permitting weekend access and directed the Deputy Registrar to formally request weekend access for counsel, and held that setting a trial start date for case management did not infringe constitutional rights. Applying Article 137, the court held the defence failed to demonstrate a prima facie substantial constitutional question and refused to refer the questions to the Constitutional Court. Parties were ordered to attend the preliminary hearing on 8 June and for the prosecution to be ready to start on 11 June 2026.

RIP, Uganda's Constitutional Court.

Faruku Muhamed and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Petition No. 17 of 2024; Constitutional Reference No. 2 of 2024) [2026] UGCC 7 (2 June 2026) Section 11(2) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act is unconstitutional because it forces automatic nullification of a criminal trial and acquittal whenever an accused’s non‑derogable rights are found breached, without holding a full trial on the original offences 👉:@2026-06-02" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">ulii.org/en/akn/ug/judg… @TonyNatif @PhillipKarugaba @KiryowaKk @norbertmao @MaleMabiriziHKK @AAgather @GodwinTOKO @chapterfourug

Happy New Month, Young Lawyers.

The plaintiffs mortgaged a residential property to finance purchase and later defaulted on instalments. The mortgagee bank commenced foreclosure and sold the property at auction in 2013 to a company controlled by the sitting tenant. The plaintiffs alleged failure to serve statutory notices, a stale and erroneous valuation, sale at a gross undervalue and collusion between the bank and purchaser. The court found on the evidence that the plaintiffs had factually defaulted, but that the mortgagee breached statutory requirements and its duty to obtain the best price by defective service, stale advertising and lack of auction transparency. The sale was therefore unlawful. The tenant and his company were found to have acted in bad faith and to have had notice, rendering the purchaser’s title void for fraud under the Registration of Titles Act. The bank’s counterclaim for a deficiency was dismissed because the deficiency resulted from the bank’s negligent and fraudulent realization. Remedies granted: the sale set aside, the purchaser’s registration cancelled and the plaintiffs reinstated as registered proprietors; the original mortgage reinstated as a charge; awards of special (UGX 3,000,000), general (UGX 20,000,000) and punitive (UGX 5,000,000) damages with interest; and costs to the plaintiffs.