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
Ssekubwa v Tinkasimire & 7 Others (Miscellaneous Application 896 of 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 174 (27 June 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to strike out a plaint, holding that the applicant lacked locus standi because he had not yet been formally joined as a party.
Wanjiko Ssedugge v Nanyonga (Miscellaneous Application 987 of 2023) [2023] UGHCLD 461 (27 November 2023)
The High Court granted limited letters of administration ad litem, substituted the widow as plaintiff, and allowed amendment of the plaint to continue the pending suit.
Nassimbwa v Kibiikyo and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 295 of 2023) [2023] UGHCFD 112 (7 November 2023)
The High Court set aside the dismissal of MA 816 of 2022 and reinstated it, accepting that the applicant’s non-appearance was due to a genuine mistake.
Bharat and Another v Nyangweso and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1687 of 2021) [2023] UGHCLD 378 (12 October 2023)
The High Court of Uganda dismissed an application to join proposed defendants in a land dispute, holding the matter was res judicata and joinder was unnecessary.
Ssebi v Mutebi and 7 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 448 of 2022) [2023] UGHCLD 51 (6 March 2023)
The High Court allowed an application to join a beneficiary as a plaintiff in a land suit, finding his interest in the estate land was unrepresented.
Najjembe and Another v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 1858 of 2022) [2023] UGHCLD 96 (9 February 2023)
The application to amend the plaint and substitute the original plaintiffs with new parties fails because the intended new plaintiffs did not themselves formally apply to be joined as parties to the suit. The law requires that joinder be initiated by those who seek to be added, demonstrating their interest and willingness to pursue the claim. The current applicants, having transferred their interest, lack standing to bring the application on behalf of the new proprietors. Granting the application would result in orders binding parties who have not expressed interest or participated in the pro…
Source excerpt
Ssebi v Mutebi and 7 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 448 of 2022) [2023] UGHCLD 26 (6 February 2023)
The High Court granted an unopposed application to join Ssebi Abdul as a plaintiff in a land suit, finding his beneficial estate interest could be affected.
Kirumira v Birungi and 2 Others (HCCS 44 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 263 (16 December 2022)
The court found that the plaintiff did not plead the existence of a business entity or partnership, nor was any business name assigned to the alleged arrangement. Therefore, the provisions of the Partnership Act and Business Names Registration Act cited by the defendants do not apply. The objection regarding locus standi was misplaced, as the plaintiff sued in his own name as a natural person, which is permissible. The objection to the amended plaint was also overruled, as leave to amend had been granted by consent order. Both preliminary objections were found to lack merit and were overruled…
Source excerpt
Kirumira Charles v Birungi Grace, Nakirijja Joyce & Muwanga James (Civil Suit 44 of 2021) [2022] UGHCLD 318 (16 December 2022)
The court found that the plaint did not plead the existence of a partnership business or a business entity, nor was a business name assigned to the alleged arrangement. Therefore, the provisions of the Partnership Act and Business Names Registration Act do not apply. The objection regarding locus standi was misplaced, as the plaintiff sued in his own name as a natural person, which is permissible. The objection to the amended plaint was also overruled, as leave to amend had been granted by consent order. Both preliminary objections were found to lack merit and were overruled, with costs award…
Source excerpt
Banaalya and Another v Isagara and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 92 of 2019) [2022] UGHC 62 (29 June 2022)
The court found that the applicants, as the current registered proprietors of the suit land, have a direct legal interest in the subject matter of Civil Suit No. 011 of 2017. Their joinder as plaintiffs is necessary to ensure that all questions in controversy are resolved in a single proceeding and to avoid the risk of their rights being determined without a hearing. The court relied on Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Supreme Court decision in Departed Asians Property Custodian Board Vs Jafer Brothers Ltd, which emphasize the need for joinder where a party's interests…
Source excerpt
