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
Alex Sekalala and Another v Sekalala Micheal and Sekalala Moses (Miscellaneous Application No. 2533 of 2025) [2025] UGHCFD 43 (11 July 2025)
The High Court extended letters of administration for the estate of Sekalala Ditus Kibalama and allowed the administrators to file an inventory out of time.
Tom Walusimbi v Andrew Kisawuzi (Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2013) [2025] UGCA 225 (11 July 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a challenge to title over a motor vehicle, holding the sale was not in market overt and the seller could not pass good title.
Darshan-Pal Singh Panesar & Others v Jasper Singh Puaar & Signum Advocates (Miscellaneous Application 1211 of 2025) [2025] UGHCFD 46 (10 July 2025)
The Court found that the applicants, as beneficiaries under the Will, are entitled to the proceeds of the sale of Namirembe property and to the transfer of the Kololo property. The executor failed to fulfill his statutory obligations to render an inventory and final account within the required time, justifying the applicants' mistrust. The law firm was justified in retaining the proceeds pending resolution of the dispute. The executor's claim that UK tax obligations justified withholding the Ugandan estate proceeds was rejected, as the Will and sale agreement did not link Ugandan properties t…
Source excerpt
Uganda v Higenyi Muhammad (CRB No. 212 of 2023; Criminal Session No. 135 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 498 (10 July 2025)
The court found that while the prosecution proved the occurrence of sexual intercourse and lack of consent, it failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the perpetrator. The identification evidence was based solely on the complainant's testimony, which was not corroborated by any other witness or physical evidence such as the phone allegedly used for identification. The absence of further investigative steps, such as forensic analysis or corroborative testimony from the first person the complainant reported to, weakened the prosecution's case. The court also noted the exist…
Source excerpt
Kyarimpa Beatrice v Mukama Alex (Civil Suit 698 of 2021) [2025] UGHCLD 125 (10 July 2025)
The High Court found the land was jointly acquired by an unmarried cohabiting couple, held the plaintiff fraudulently registered sole title, and ordered cancellation and sale.
Ochaya George v Ocan Ben Benson (Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 500 (10 July 2025)
The court found that the applicant's reasons for delay related to events in 2023, which were not relevant to the period after the trial court record was certified and available on 9th April, 2024. The applicant failed to explain the delay from that date until the application was filed on 27th July, 2024. The court held that the applicant did not act diligently and only sought extension after being served with an eviction notice, suggesting the application was an afterthought. The procedural error of filing a notice of appeal instead of a memorandum was noted, but the court, guided by the prin…
Source excerpt
Namatovu Ramula and Others v Modern Electronics Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1108 of 2025) [2025] UGHCLD 121 (10 July 2025)
The court found that the respondent's alleged injury, including the claimed UGX 400,000,000 in development costs, was quantifiable and could be compensated by monetary damages, thus failing the irreparable damage test required for a temporary injunction. The respondent did not challenge the appellants' proprietary interests but sought to enforce contractual obligations arising from a lease agreement with the previous owner. The court held that while the respondent demonstrated triable issues (prima facie case), the balance of convenience favored the appellants as registered proprietors who ha…
Source excerpt
Uganda v Otim Peter Alias Master (Criminal Session Case 127 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 526 (10 July 2025)
The court found that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt on all essential ingredients of aggravated robbery. The evidence was primarily based on the sole testimony of PW1, which lacked corroboration and was undermined by the absence of physical exhibits (motorcycle, gun, cartridges), medical evidence, and testimony from key witnesses such as the Investigating Officer and Scene of Crime Officer. The conditions for identification were not sufficiently reliable, and the prosecution's omissions prejudiced the accused's right to a fair trial. The accused…
Source excerpt
Life Medical and Rescue International Ltd v Nu World Proprietary Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 723 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 220 (10 July 2025)
The court held that the governing law clause in the parties' Memorandum of Agreement, which stipulates that the agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Republic of South Africa, does not amount to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. The clause only determines the substantive law applicable to the contract, not the forum for dispute resolution. In the absence of an unequivocal exclusive jurisdiction clause, the High Court of Uganda retains its unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139(1) of the Constitution and Section 14 of the Judicature Act. The…
Source excerpt
Uganda v Baijusa Bruhan Kalyango alias Masiga (HCT-00-ICD-SC-0003-2018) [2025] UGHCICD 9 (10 July 2025)
The Respondent, having been granted bail and adequately notified of his trial obligations, deliberately absconded and failed to appear in court despite repeated summonses and public notices. His conduct constitutes a voluntary waiver of his right to be present at trial. The court, guided by constitutional and statutory provisions, as well as persuasive case law, finds that the interests of justice, public policy, and the rights of co-accused and victims outweigh the Respondent's absence. The trial may lawfully proceed in his absence, as discontinuing the case would undermine public confidence…
Source excerpt
