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
Efulansi Namutebi and Others v Boost Investment Ltd and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 378 of 2025) [2025] UGHCLD 57 (7 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed a bid to review and stay a taxing officer’s certificate, holding that the applicants used the wrong procedure and should have appealed.
Khainza & 4 Others v Mweru (Miscellaneous Application 437 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 122 (19 March 2025)
The High Court at Mbale dismissed an application challenging a Registrar’s order, holding that the proper remedy was an appeal under Order 50 rule 8.
Finance Trust Bank Limited v Tibamwenda Brenda Jessica (Miscellaneous Application 1442 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 45 (14 February 2025)
The Court found that the payment of 30% of the outstanding loan made by the Respondent in a previous abated suit sufficed for the purposes of Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations, and requiring a further deposit would be contrary to law and equity. The Registrar correctly found a prima facie case based on substantive issues requiring adjudication, such as unconscionable interest rates and penalties. The Respondent would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted, as she and her family reside on the mortgaged property, and displacement cannot be adequately compensated b…
Source excerpt
Mukasa & 2 Others v Nakyaze & 24 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1979 of 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 238 (8 October 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to extend time to appeal and to set aside an abatement order, finding no sufficient cause for the delay.
Kalisa and 3 Others v Baala and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 7 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 869 (2 August 2024)
The High Court at Hoima dismissed an application to extend time to appeal, finding no sufficient cause for the delay and no likely success on the intended appeal.
Salongo Lukwago and 2 Others v Ssentongo and Another (Miscellaneous Appeal 482 of 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 146 (24 May 2024)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against a deputy registrar’s injunction, finding the appellants had not opposed the application and the appeal was time-barred.
Ovungiu & Another v Klelia & 4 Others (Civil Miscellaneous Application 70 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 495 (10 October 2023)
The High Court struck out an application for leave to appeal, holding that an aggrieved party had an automatic right of appeal from the Deputy Registrar and no leave was required.
Bwambale v Mwebesa (HCT-CV-MA 42 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 238 (7 November 2022)
The High Court found that the Assistant Registrar's decision to dismiss the application for a temporary injunction was made without independently verifying the prevailing status of possession of the suit land, as there was conflicting evidence from both parties. The absence of a pre-trial locus visit meant the court lacked clarity on who was in actual possession, which is essential for determining whether to preserve the status quo through a temporary injunction. The court held that, in such circumstances, it is just and equitable to set aside the Registrar's ruling and orders, and to direct…
Source excerpt
National Resistance Movement v Kampala Modernity Printers Ltd (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6 of 2016) [2016] UGCommC 41 (6 May 2016)
The court held that while there is a specific procedure under Order 9 rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules for setting aside judgments entered by a registrar, the appeal as filed by the Appellant was not incompetent per se. The registrar is not a subordinate court but a special officer of the High Court, and the distinction between an appeal and an application to set aside is procedural rather than jurisdictional. Both procedures—appeal under Order 50 rule 8 and application under Order 9 rule 12—are commenced by notice of motion and seek the same substantive remedy. The failure to cite the co…
Source excerpt
Uganda Telecom Ltd v Warid Telecom (U)Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2015) [2015] UGCommC 148 (13 November 2015)
The court found that all substantive and related applications from which the appeal arose had been concluded or withdrawn, and the rights of the parties determined. As such, there was no longer a live dispute between the parties, and any order made by the court would be academic and without practical effect. The issue of costs, which was the sole ground of the appeal, had already been resolved in the main applications. Therefore, the appeal was moot and incompetent, and pursuing it would be a waste of judicial resources. The preliminary objection was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with…
Source excerpt
