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
Kasenge v Kyeyune (Civil Suit 578 of 2015) [2023] UGHCLD 147 (15 June 2023)
The High Court held that the defendant was not a trespasser because she had a protected kibanja interest as a bona fide occupant. The suit was dismissed with costs.
Yewagnesh Birriggwa v Walusimbi and 3 Others (Civil Appeal 52 of 2014) [2023] UGCA 353 (23 March 2023)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial Judge erred in law and fact by holding that the respondents, who had last cultivated the land in 1989, were bona fide occupants at the time the appellant was registered as proprietor in 2002. The evidence established that the land had been vacant and unutilized for over ten years prior to the appellant's acquisition, amounting to abandonment under section 37 of the Land Act. Consequently, the respondents lost any bona fide occupancy rights, and the appellant's registered title was not subject to any kibanja interest. The burden of proof to establish a…
Source excerpt
Yewagnesh Birriggwa v Herbert Walusimbi and Others (Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2014) [2023] UGCA 382 (23 March 2023)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial Judge erred in law and fact by holding that the respondents, who had last cultivated the land in 1989, were bona fide occupants at the time the appellant was registered as proprietor in 2002. The evidence showed the land had been vacant and unutilized for over ten years prior to the appellant's acquisition, amounting to abandonment under section 37 of the Land Act. Consequently, the respondents lost their status as bona fide occupants, and the appellant's registered title was not subject to any kibanja interest. The burden of proof to establish the kib…
Source excerpt
Bakileta and 3 Others v Kwizera and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 104 of 2018) [2021] UGHCLD 183 (15 December 2021)
The High Court held that the kibanja was matrimonial property, found the respondents had not made proper inquiries, and allowed the appeal in part.
Atim v Onen (Civil Appeal No. 71 of 2018) [2020] UGHC 99 (22 May 2020)
The appeal was dismissed primarily because the suit was a nullity, having been filed in the name of a deceased person. Even if this fundamental flaw were set aside, the evidence did not support the appellant's claim of trespass or boundary excess by the respondent. The trial court's findings regarding the respondent's bona fide occupation and the lack of credible evidence of trespass were justified, as the oral and physical evidence at the locus in quo confirmed the respondent's long-standing possession and the existence of a clear boundary marked by banana trees. The inconsistencies in the a…
Source excerpt
Semakula & Anor v Setimba (Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2013) [2014] UGHCLD 35 (23 October 2014)
The High Court found that the respondent acquired equitable interest in the suit land through valid sale agreements and long-standing possession since 1974. The appellants, with knowledge of the respondent's interest and occupation, fraudulently obtained registration and transferred title, thereby offending the Land Act and the Registration of Titles Act. The trial court correctly applied the law on equitable interests, bona fide occupancy, and fraud, and its findings were supported by uncontroverted evidence, including scientific handwriting analysis and testimony regarding occupation. The t…
Source excerpt
