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
Owor v Nareo & 3 Others (Civil Appeal 41 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 78 (3 March 2025)
The High Court allowed a land appeal, set aside a trial court finding of trespass and damages, and held that the appellant owned the disputed customary land.
Ayieyo and Another v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya and Another (Application No.1 of 2024) [2025] EACJ 5 (3 March 2025) (Appellate Division)
The Court found that while the Applicants identified procedural irregularities in the filing and amendment of the Record of Appeal, the Respondents provided sufficient explanation for the delay and demonstrated that the omissions did not affect the substance of the appeal or prejudice the Applicants. The Court distinguished the cited authority on affidavits by counsel, holding that the affidavit in question was proper as it related to matters within the deponent's knowledge and did not risk cross-examination. The Court exercised its discretion under Rule 4 to save the appeal in the interest o…
Source excerpt
Issa Yusuf Sadam and 4 Others v Mustafa Oruma (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 527 (3 March 2025)
The High Court at Gulu revoked letters of administration for failure to file inventory and accounts, but refused to appoint the applicants as administrators.
Kiiza v Attorney General & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 37 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 50 (3 March 2025)
The High Court Civil Division does not possess the requisite criminal appellate or revisionary jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus application challenging a conviction and sentence imposed by the General Court Martial. The proper procedure for challenging such a conviction is by way of judicial review or through the designated appellate court. The applicant's approach was procedurally incorrect, and the court cannot exercise powers outside its conferred jurisdiction. Consequently, the application for a writ of habeas corpus must fail.
Source excerpt
Lukwago v Lubuuka (Civil Appeal 84 of 2022) [2025] UGHCLD 32 (28 February 2025)
The High Court dismissed an appeal over a land dispute, upholding findings of valid title, trespass, and general damages after rejecting claims of fraud and Kibanja ownership.
Kabuga Ranchers v Kamwenge Ditsrict Local Government (HCT-01-LD-MA 103 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 129 (28 February 2025)
The High Court refused a stay of execution, finding no serious threat of execution, no proven irreparable loss, and no greater hardship to the applicant.
Bachubhai Karsandas Thobani v Mugume and 2 Others (Civil Suit 615 of 2017) [2025] UGHCLD 41 (28 February 2025)
The High Court held that the plaintiff’s lease remained protected by expropriation-related rules, so the land was not available for reallocation and the 1st defendant’s title was cancelled.
Shurik Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Tax Application 184 of 2023) [2025] UGTAT 2 (28 February 2025)
The Tribunal upheld URA’s reclassification of cough drops and a skin cream, finding the products were not medicaments for customs purposes.
Hagmann v The Knowledge Hub Limited (Petition Cause 33327 of 2024) [2025] UGRSB 4 (28 February 2025)
The Registrar found that the breakdown in relations and failure of corporate governance between the two equal shareholders, coupled with the respondent's refusal to provide key documents and failure to recognize the applicant's substantial investment, constituted oppressive conduct within the meaning of section 243 of the Companies Act. The Registrar rejected winding up as a remedy, as it would unfairly prejudice the respondent, and instead ordered an independent valuation of both parties' contributions. The respondent is granted the first opportunity to buy out the applicant's shares at a fa…
Source excerpt
Bakirana v Kiiza (HCT-01-LD-CV-CA 32 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 132 (28 February 2025)
The appeal failed because the appellants' claim was based on a will that was neither pleaded nor produced in court, contrary to the requirements of the Evidence Act and established case law. Oral testimony about the will was inadmissible and insufficient to prove their claim to the suit land. The respondent's evidence was consistent with her pleadings and supported by documentary proof of letters of administration and inventory, establishing her entitlement as beneficiary of her late father's estate. The trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence and did not rely on irregular evidence f…
Source excerpt
