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
Christine Namayanja v Administrator General and Others (Civil Suit No. 534 of 2016) [2025] UGHCLD 138 (15 July 2025)
The High Court held that the 2nd defendant fraudulently transferred and subdivided the plaintiff’s land, but recognized the 4th defendant as a bona fide purchaser for specific plots.
Otukol v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 3 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 297 (19 May 2025)
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal, holding that the appellant’s sale of family land did not prove false pretence because he had an honest beneficial claim.
Katende & 3 Others v Katende (Civil Suit 160 of 2021) [2024] UGHCFD 39 (30 July 2024)
The High Court of Uganda held that the deceased’s will was valid, rejected fraud allegations, and declined a share in Komamboga, but awarded the plaintiffs 5 acres in Singo.
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.
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.
Mpungu and 4 Others v Ddamulira and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 327 of 2019) [2021] UGCA 75 (21 July 2021)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a family land appeal, upholding findings that the appellants had not proved beneficial interest in Susana Nambi’s estate or actionable fraud.
Mukiibi and Another v Najjuma and 6 Others (CIVIL SUIT NO. 1005 OF 1999) [2000] UGHC 56 (31 October 2000)
The court found that the suit kibanja was owned by the late Godfrey Kiwanuka Kyansimbi, having been devised to him by Abisagi Batesanaliwo, and that the plaintiffs, as his widow and son, had beneficial interests and locus standi to sue. The first defendant's initial lawful occupation became trespass after her licence was revoked by notice. The second to sixth defendants entered and remained on the property without consent, despite protests, and constructed structures thereon, constituting trespass. The seventh defendant was not shown to have entered or occupied the property and was not liable…
Source excerpt
