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
Kasoma v Mukiibi (Civil Appeal 24 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 80 (26 February 2025)
The High Court allowed a land sale appeal, holding the trial court wrongly raised inheritance-capacity issues not pleaded and ordered specific performance.
Natukunda v Muhaise Bikalemesa (Miscellaneous Application 256 of 2021) [2024] UGHCLD 278 (9 December 2024)
The High Court declined to set aside an ex parte land judgment, finding counsel’s non-attendance was excusable but the dispute had already been overtaken by events.
Mpanga & 9 Others v Bunkedeko & Another (Miscellaneous Application 2240 of 2024; Miscellaneous Application 2264 of 2024; Miscellaneous Application 2320 of 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 245 (31 October 2024)
The court found that the applicants, as registered proprietors and defendants in the main suit, were directly affected by the orders made in Misc. Application No. 1453 of 2024, despite not being parties to that application. The exclusion of the applicants from proceedings that resulted in orders impacting their proprietary interests constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. The court held that a third party may seek review if they can demonstrate they are aggrieved by a decision, and the applicants met this threshold. The applicants also established that new and important evide…
Source excerpt
Twagira v Mayengo and Another (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1047 OF 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 301 (1 October 2024)
The High Court held that Civil Suit No. 1074 of 2020 was res judicata because the dispute had already been finally determined in Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2020.
Kyobe v Nalweyiso and Another (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2023) [2024] UGHC 1208 (26 September 2024)
The appellant, having failed to file a written statement of defence in the lower court, did not submit to the jurisdiction of the trial court and was subject to a default judgment. Under Ugandan law, specifically Section 67(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 9 rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a party in default who has not filed a defence cannot appeal an ex parte judgment. The proper remedy for such a party is to apply to set aside the ex parte judgment, not to lodge an appeal. The authorities cited confirm that the statutory right of appeal is only available to defendants who have…
Source excerpt
Kagara and 3 Others v Atamba and 11 Others (Civil Suit 149 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 481 (14 June 2024)
The court found that the Plaintiffs lawfully acquired and occupied the suit land through purchase and first occupation, with the knowledge and approval of local authorities and neighbours, and that the Defendants failed to rebut this evidence. The 1st-5th Defendants fraudulently procured a certificate of title over land already in the Plaintiffs' possession, without involving local authorities or neighbours, and subsequently transferred it to the 6th-10th Defendants, who failed to conduct due diligence. The court held that the 6th-10th Defendants could not be considered bonafide purchasers fo…
Source excerpt
Ruryabeita v Beyunga & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 50 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 449 (11 June 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to review a prior appeal judgment, holding that no error apparent on the face of the record was shown.
Kawuki v Sematiko (Civil Appeal 131 of 2023) [2024] UGHCLD 132 (27 May 2024)
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding that an earlier sale to a third party had priority and that the appellant was not a bona fide purchaser.
Bugaywa v Kiriri Cotton Company Ltd and 3 Others (Civil Suit 25 of 2018) [2024] UGHC 500 (20 May 2024)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that her reversionary interest in the suit land was injured by the defendants' leasehold interests. Evidence showed that the suit land had long-standing leases in favour of the 1st defendant, subsequently transferred to the 2nd defendant, and that the plaintiff acquired her mailo interest subject to these leases. The plaintiff did not provide a sale agreement or search report to substantiate her claim of purchase without notice of the leases. The court held that the plaintiff was aware, or ought to have been aware, of the existing leases and…
Source excerpt
Kalema v Nakalema & 2 Others (Civil Suit 2146 of 2015) [2024] UGHCLD 107 (19 April 2024)
The court held that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to the present suit because the parties are not the same as in Civil Suit No 445 of 2011, nor are the defendants claiming under the parties in the former suit. The 2nd defendant was not a party to the previous suit, and the issue of bonafide purchaser for value without notice was not determined in the earlier proceedings. The court further found that the judgment in Civil Suit No 445 of 2011 does not fall under the categories of judgments that are relevant under Section 41 of the Evidence Act. The plea of res judicata, raised by…
Source excerpt
