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
Okello v Akello and Another (Civil Appeal 135 of 2021) [2025] UGHC 38 (31 January 2025)
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding the appellant failed to prove ownership or trespass, and setting aside the trial court’s declaration of customary ownership for the respondents.
Serwanga Yoweri v Hanifa Tamale and Another (CIVIL REVISION NO.3 OF 2024) [2025] UGHC 151 (31 January 2025)
The High Court referred a civil revision to be heard with a pending land suit to avoid conflicting orders over the same property in Komamboga.
Uganda v No. 68816 PPC Elwelu (Criminal Session Case 132 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 118 (31 January 2025)
The High Court acquitted the accused of murder, finding he acted in self-defence and defence of property during a violent crowd incident and lacked malice aforethought.
Kiggundu and Others v Ndagano (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.3538 OF 2023) [2025] UGHC 164 (31 January 2025)
The court found that the Respondent had two written statements of defence on record, filed through different advocates. The application to strike out the defence and enter judgment was only served on one set of advocates (M/s CCAKS Advocates) and not on M/s Mukiibi Kyeyune Advocates, who also represented the Respondent and filed a defence. In light of the constitutional right to a fair hearing and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the court held that it would be improper to proceed without ensuring service on all legal representatives. The application was therefore stayed, and the Applica…
Source excerpt
Masiko v Magara and 4 Others (Civil Appeal 39 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 107 (31 January 2025)
The court found that the memorandum of appeal was filed within the statutory period when the time taken by the lower court to prepare and certify the record was excluded, as required by Section 79(2) CPA. The preliminary objection regarding competence of the appeal was overruled. On the merits, the court held that Smak Advocates' representation of the Respondents was not objected to by the parties, and the absence of a notice of instructions was a technicality that did not prejudice the Appellant. However, instruction fees and costs prior to the filing of instructions would not be recoverable…
Source excerpt
Kyotamanyire Langton Madvan v Magambo Fred (MISC. APPLICATION No. 0108 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 239 (31 January 2025)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay in prosecuting his appeal. The medical evidence showed the applicant was mostly an outpatient and could have instructed his lawyers, who themselves failed to take necessary steps to prosecute the appeal. The absence of both the applicant and his counsel on the hearing date, despite public notice, indicated abandonment of the appeal. The court held that neither the applicant's sickness nor the conduct of his lawyers justified reinstatement, and that justice required the respondent to enjoy the fruits of his…
Source excerpt
KCB Bank Uganda Limited v Range Consult Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 15 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 98 (31 January 2025)
The High Court declined to strike out the suit, holding that the party who sought joinder bore the duty to amend pleadings and that no contempt was shown.
Kakama v Asiimwe (Civil Appeal 7 of 2021) [2025] UGHCFD 2 (31 January 2025)
High Court family appeal on custody, maintenance and costs. The court replaced sole custody with joint custody, revised maintenance, and set aside costs.
Mufumbiro v Ssabwe and Another (Civil Suit 166 of 2019) [2025] UGHCCD 10 (30 January 2025)
The High Court found the land dispute over plot 77 was not res judicata, but held the plaintiff failed to prove a valid sale and dismissed the suit with costs.
Okullu v Okidi (Civil Appeal 125 of 2015) [2025] UGCA 18 (30 January 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a second appeal over customary land ownership, holding that limitation ran from the respondent’s awareness of trespass in 2006.
