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
Kadene & Ors v Abalema United Effort Ltd & Ors (Miisc Application No. 1463 of 2017) [2017] UGHCLD 96 (6 November 2017)
The High Court allowed disabled applicants to be joined as co-defendants in a land dispute, finding they had an arguable interest in the suit property.
Nyumba ya Chuma Ltd Vs Uganda Land Commission & Anor (Consitutional Petition No. 13 of 2010) [2015] UGCA 182 (9 December 2015)
The court held that the petition raised constitutional interpretation issues, but found the Uganda Land Commission acted within its mandate over government land and dismissed the petition.
Byaruhanga & 27 Ors v Uganda Land Commission (Ma No. 523 of 2010) [2012] UGHC 156 (20 December 2012)
The High Court granted a temporary injunction preserving disputed land in Mbuya pending the main suit, finding a prima facie case and risk of irreparable harm.
Buhoko v Buhunga LC111 Council & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2008) [2012] UGHC 48 (13 March 2012)
The High Court dismissed an appeal over disputed land in Kabale, holding that the appellant proved only a small allocated plot, not the larger area claimed.
Ojede v Lutalo and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 074 of 2007) [2012] UGHC 435 (16 February 2012)
The High Court dismissed a land recovery suit, holding that the plaintiff’s lease had expired, no fraud was proved, and title held by the 1st defendant was valid.
Bamweyaka and Others v Kampala District Land Board and Another (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2002) [2002] UGCA 19 (6 August 2002)
The Court of Appeal allowed a land appeal, holding the appellants were customary tenants and that the District Land Board unlawfully allocated the land.
Occupants v George Mutala and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 511 of 2001) [2001] UGCA 62 (21 December 2001)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in failing to recognize the appellants as customary tenants of the suit land. The evidence established that the appellants and their predecessors had occupied and developed the land for over forty years without lease or licence from the controlling authority, which brought them within the definition of customary tenure under the Land Act. The District Land Board had no authority to allocate the suit land to the second respondent, as it was not available for allocation under section 60(1)(a) of the Land Act. The allocation and subsequent reg…
Source excerpt
Rushegyera v Bushenyi, Ishaka Towun Council (Civil Appeal 26 of 1999) [2001] UGCA 24 (5 November 2001)
The Court of Appeal held that payment of survey fees and council minutes did not create a valid lease or legal title to the disputed plots. The appeal was dismissed.
