Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Source-linked decisions currently available to browse
Ssenyondo v Tesco Industries Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2703 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 20 (7 February 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application for discovery of bank statements and rental tax returns, finding the request too broad, speculative, and intrusive of privacy.
Ssenyondo v Tesco Industries Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2703 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 46 (7 February 2025)
The Court found that the Applicant's request for broad discovery of bank statements and rental tax returns was not sufficiently specific or justified by the material issues in the main suit. The Applicant already possessed deposit slips and receipts relevant to his claim, and the documents sought were primarily for comparative purposes, not essential to the resolution of the dispute. Granting the order would risk violating the privacy and confidentiality rights of other tenants and the Respondent, as protected under Article 27(2) of the Constitution. The Court held that discovery should not b…
Source excerpt
Nasirumbi and Others v Wafula and Others (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 21 OF 2024) [2025] UGHC 186 (7 February 2025)
The court found that while certain paragraphs of the affidavit in support contained matters of law and were argumentative, thereby offending Order 19 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the offending paragraphs could be severed. The remainder of the affidavit was meaningful and sufficient to support the application. The preliminary objection was therefore overruled, and the application was allowed to proceed on its merits. The court rejected the argument that the affidavit was wholly defective and emphasized that severance is permissible where it does not render the affidavit meaningless.
Source excerpt
Owor Agree and Another v Centenary Bank and Another (25 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 185 (7 February 2025)
The court held that the mandatory nature of Order 11 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2019 requires parties to take out summons for directions within the prescribed period, failing which the suit abates automatically. The Plaintiffs failed to comply, and thus Civil Suit No.25 of 2023 abated. Regarding the counterclaim, the court found that a Defendant cannot counterclaim against a co-Defendant and other persons not party to the suit, as per Order 8 Rules 2 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules and persuasive case law. The 1st Defendant's counterclaim was therefore incompetent.…
Source excerpt
Sadala and Another v Prime Annex Finance Ltd (MISC. APPL. NO. 14 OF 2023) [2025] UGHC 184 (7 February 2025)
The High Court reinstated an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution, finding the dismissal was premature and attributable to court error rather than the applicants.
Hiire Mudanye Mike and Others v Okumu Sarah Kitasle and Others (MSC APPLICATION NO 009 OF 2022) [2025] UGHC 189 (7 February 2025)
The High Court rejected a challenge to an affidavit, allowed substitution of a defendant with costs, but refused amendment of the plaint for introducing fraud and a new party.
Kaddu and Another v Kazibwe and 2 Others (Civil Suit 648 of 2020) [2025] UGHCLD 31 (6 February 2025)
The court found that the 1st defendant's family had occupied the suit land as their family home since 1992, with uninterrupted possession and recognition by local authorities. The evidence showed that the family was not compensated for their interest, and their occupation predated the plaintiffs' acquisition of title. The law protects lawful and bona fide occupants, including family land, and prohibits transactions without spousal consent. The plaintiffs failed to conduct adequate due diligence and did not compensate all occupants. The change in proprietorship did not extinguish the existing…
Source excerpt
Makolo v Nyachwo (MA NO.063 OF 2022) [2025] UGHC 188 (6 February 2025)
High Court of Uganda decision in Makolo v Nyachwo, decided by Kawesa J on 6 February 2025. The supplied text does not include the judgment content, so no substantive summary can be derived.
Fory v Republic of Côte D'ivoire (Application No. 004/2021) [2025] AfCHPR 8 (5 February 2025)
The African Court held that it had jurisdiction over the application, but declared it inadmissible because the applicant had not exhausted local remedies.
Noudehouenou v Republic of Benin (Ruling) (Application No. 020/2020) [2025] AfCHPR 12 (5 February 2025)
The Court found that it has material jurisdiction to hear the application because the applicant alleged violations of rights protected by the Charter and other human rights instruments ratified by Benin, and the application was filed before the withdrawal of Benin's declaration took effect. However, the Court held that the application was inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of local remedies. In the SBEE case, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the appeal proceedings were unduly prolonged or that he took necessary steps to obtain the judgment, and did not pursue the available remedy befo…
Source excerpt
