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
Mbabazi v Kamanyire and Another (Civil Appeal 13 of 2021) [2024] UGHC 876 (30 August 2024)
The High Court allowed a land appeal, holding that the disputed land was personally owned by the late Baturumayo Kisoro Kibi, not Basiita clan land.
Mbabazi s/o yosiya v Mbabazi (Civil Appeal 21 of 2015) [2023] UGHC 97 (27 October 2023)
The High Court allowed an appeal over ownership of disputed land, holding that the suit land belonged to the Bateera clan and that the respondent failed to prove individual ownership.
Osele John and 18 others vs Ikinu Deborah and another (Civil Case 29 of 2014) [2022] UGHC 98 (20 October 2022)
The High Court held that the plaintiffs proved ownership of 149.63 hectares included in a titled parcel and ordered mutation of the title, an injunction, and costs.
Nyero Vs Otto & 4 Ors (CIVIL APPEAL No. 0015 OF 2017) [2018] UGHCCD 48 (4 October 2018)
The High Court ordered a retrial in a land appeal after finding the record incomplete and the missing locus in quo proceedings essential to resolving ownership and possession.
Kumbe v Malingha & Anor (CIVIL APPEAL NO 0043 OF 2014) [2018] UGHCCD 123 (15 August 2018)
The High Court dismissed an appeal over disputed land sales, holding that the respondents were bona fide purchasers and that the appellant failed to prove clan ownership or invalid sale.
Uganda v Ochom & Anor (Criminal Appeal No. 0025 of 2013) [2017] UGHCCRD 87 (19 April 2017)
The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal arising from a clan land dispute, holding that draft minutes were not proven forged and criminal process was inappropriate.
Nakitende & Anor v Kigozi & 2 Ors (Misc. Application No. 495 of 2016) [2016] UGHCLD 6 (25 November 2016)
The court found that the applicants, as beneficiaries of the estate of Nalumansi Nakku Christine, were affected by the consent judgment entered in Civil Suit No. 128 of 2009 without their participation or knowledge. Although generally a party in contempt is denied audience, the application to set aside the consent judgment falls within the exception that allows such a party to be heard. The court held that a consent judgment can be set aside if obtained by fraud, collusion, mistake, or absence of consent, and that third parties affected by such a judgment may seek review. The applicants' occu…
Source excerpt
