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
Decisions matching the current search
Ssemawere v African Express Airways (Civil Suit 978 of 2016) [2025] UGCommC 10 (10 January 2025)
The High Court held that the plaintiff had locus standi, found a contract and breach, and awarded damages, interest, and costs.
COSCO Shipping LINES (Kenya) Limited v Synthomer Trading Limited & 3 Others (Civil Suit 107 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 1082 (4 December 2024)
The High Court found that the 1st Defendant used a forged bill of lading to obtain cargo, treated it as stolen goods, and awarded damages, interest, and costs.
Osikol (Suing through Kabagambe, his Lawful Attorney) v Mutebi (Civil Suit 640 of 2022) [2024] UGCommC 362 (28 October 2024)
The High Court held that the plaintiff’s agent bound the defendant in a loan agreement, found UGX 70 million unpaid, and awarded damages, costs, and reduced interest.
Osman v Century Bottling Company Limited (Civil Appeal 10 of 2020) [2024] UGSC 12 (18 June 2024)
The Supreme Court found that the appellant failed to adduce cogent evidence to support the claim for special damages. The business entities involved were legally distinct, and the suit was premised on a 1999 agreement that had ceased to operate. The audit report and other documentation presented by the appellant were unreliable, speculative, and did not establish a direct financial loss attributable to the respondent's conduct. The Court of Appeal properly re-evaluated the evidence and applied the correct legal principles regarding special damages and the requirements for proof. The Supreme C…
Source excerpt
Sanlam Life Insurance (Uganda) Limited v Minet Uganda Insurance Brokers (Application 6 of 2024) [2024] UGIAT 4 (31 May 2024)
The Tribunal found that Minet Uganda Insurance Brokers, as a broker, had locus standi to institute the claim on behalf of its client, Ernst & Young, based on the authority letter and the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions. The Tribunal held that the insured parent did not have prior knowledge of the child's hearing impairment at the time of policy enrollment, and the diagnosis was only made after objective tests conducted post-policy inception. The evidence presented by the Appellant regarding alleged non-disclosure was not sufficiently authenticated or corroborated by expert testim…
Source excerpt
Katangole International Group Limited v Mordern Agri Infra Limited and Another (Civil Suit 28 of 2021) [2024] UGHC 357 (30 April 2024)
The High Court held that the land sale agreement was valid but the buyer breached it by paying the seller’s attorney instead of the agreed bank account.
Kangave v King Albert Distillers Limited (Civil Suit 4 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 221 (19 April 2024)
The court found that the written statement of defense and counter claim were filed within the statutory period, thus competent. On the substantive issues, the court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an agency contract or a contract of hire of motor vehicles with the defendant. The evidence showed the plaintiff operated as an independent stockist/distributor, not as an agent under the defendant's control, and there was no credible evidence of commission payments or agency terms. The plaintiff also failed to prove ownership or the defendant's possession of the disputed ve…
Source excerpt
Kisinde v Sil Investment Limited and 3 Others (Civil Suit 749 of 2016) [2024] UGHCLD 116 (18 April 2024)
The High Court dismissed a land dispute, finding the plaintiff failed to prove redemption of the mortgaged property or fraud in the issuance and sale of the title.
Don Dino Institute for Orphan Care Limited v Rev Fr. Casto and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 88 (31 March 2023)
The court found that a lawful order maintaining the status quo on the suit property was issued and that the 1st to 6th respondents, as agents or employees of the 6th respondent, had knowledge of the order through their counsel. Despite this, they altered the status quo by changing bank signatories and withdrawing funds to construct a new building, which constituted contempt regardless of their intentions or the purported benefit to the school. The court rejected the preliminary objections regarding lack of capacity and prematurity, holding that principal officers could act for the company and…
Source excerpt
Sseruwagi v Jamani & 2 Others (Civil Suit 1024 of 2019) [2023] UGCommC 181 (30 March 2023)
The High Court held that an alleged 2017 oral commission agreement worth USD 80,000 was unenforceable because it was required to be in writing under section 10(5) of the Contracts Act.
