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
Kayondo Jackson Sserwadda v Ntege Yusuf (Civil Appeal 4 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 304 (1 April 2025)
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove ownership of the kibanja and the respondent was not a trespasser.
Bagamba v Nakibuuka & 3 Others (Civil Appeal 8 of 2025) [2025] UGHCLD 51 (31 March 2025)
The High Court upheld dismissal of an appealed injunction application because the amended chamber summons was served before signing and sealing, a mandatory defect.
Kuku Foods Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Tax Application 3 of 2024) [2025] UGTAT 5 (31 March 2025)
Tax Appeals Tribunal case between Kuku Foods Uganda Limited and the Uganda Revenue Authority, decided on 31 March 2025. The available record contains no PDF text for substantive summarization.
Uganda v Kule Rasto (Criminal Sessions Case 197 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 397 (31 March 2025)
The prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused. The victim did not identify the accused, and the arresting and investigating officers provided no direct evidence linking the accused to the crime. No property was recovered from the accused, and no medical report was tendered to corroborate the alleged injuries. The essential ingredients of aggravated robbery—identification, theft, use of violence, and participation—were not proved. Accordingly, the evidence fell far below the required standard, and the accused could not be called upon t…
Source excerpt
Nalwoga v Kyeyune (Miscellaneous Application 3045 of 2023) [2025] UGCommC 39 (31 March 2025)
The High Court granted conditional leave to defend a summary suit, but entered summary judgment for UGX 50 million on the loan principal. Trial remains on the surcharge issue.
Kalanzi & Another v Lunkuse (Civil Suit 144 of 2019) [2025] UGHCFD 12 (31 March 2025)
The High Court held that the alleged 1977 will was not proved, found the deceased died intestate, and ordered joint administration of the estate and subdivision of the land.
Kadala Haidali v Kakembo Micheal and Others (Miscellaneous Application 93 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 309 (31 March 2025)
The High Court reinstated a dismissed transfer application after finding sufficient cause for non-appearance, but dismissed the reinstated application as moot.
James Mwangushya Driers v Centenary Rural Development Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1802 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 139 (31 March 2025)
The court found that the applicant failed to serve the application within the prescribed 21 days and did not seek an extension of time, rendering the application fatally defective and liable to dismissal. The applicant did not file an affidavit in rejoinder to contest the respondent's evidence regarding late service, and the law presumes uncontroverted evidence as admitted. On the merits, the court held that the applicant was effectively served with summons via WhatsApp, as evidenced by the process server's affidavit and supporting documentation, and thus had sufficient knowledge of the suit.…
Source excerpt
Uganda v Mumbere Rogers (Criminal Sessions Case 102 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 396 (31 March 2025)
The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused for aggravated robbery. The evidence was largely hearsay, with the victim not testifying and the two police witnesses providing inconsistent accounts regarding the identification and prior knowledge of the accused. No identification parade was conducted, and the accused was not found with any stolen items or weapon. The contradictions and lack of direct evidence from the victim rendered the prosecution's case insufficient to meet the legal ingredients of aggravated robbery. The court found that none of the essential el…
Source excerpt
Sembatya Ibrahim v Daniel Walugembe (Miscellaneous Application No. 2038 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 158 (28 March 2025)
The court found that the applicant was effectively served with summons both through his receptionist at his place of business and electronically via WhatsApp to the number he provided in the underlying agreement. The applicant's own admission that he learned of the suit and engaged lawyers to file a defense demonstrated that service achieved its intended purpose. The court held that the applicant's denial of service was unconvincing, as the evidence showed the WhatsApp number used for service matched the one in the agreement. The court further recognized the validity of electronic service und…
Source excerpt
