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
Munyira & 6 Others v Balyeidhusa (Civil Application 640 of 2024) [2025] UGCA 52 (14 February 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for stay of execution pending appeal, finding no likelihood of success and no irreparable injury.
Nawatti & 2 Others v Luboyera & 3 Others (Civil Suit 29 of 2018) [2024] UGHCLD 299 (23 December 2024)
The court found that the 1st and 2nd defendants were fraudulently registered as proprietors of the suit land, as they had no valid interest in the estate of the late Zakariya Musoke. The 1st defendant's claim to registration based on his status as cultural heir was rejected, as his late father had already received his share of the estate and relocated. The plaintiffs, as direct beneficiaries, were entitled to assert their proprietary rights over the suit land, which was acquired in exchange for the original family Kibanja. The court held that the registration of the 1st and 2nd defendants was…
Source excerpt
Olum Vs Bongomin & 4 Ors (Civil Application No. 120 of 2015) [2019] UGHCCD 84 (1 April 2019)
The High Court at Gulu ordered subdivision of co-owned land, holding that the applicant’s exclusion from the property unlawfully interfered with his property rights.
Banoba & 3 Ors Vs Bainomugisha & 3 Ors (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2014) [2017] UGHCCD 218 (14 August 2017)
The High Court dismissed a land ownership appeal, finding the trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence and that the respondents’ late father owned the land.
Kizito v Kanonya & 7 Ors (Civil Suit No. 534 of 2003) [2012] UGHC 95 (25 May 2012)
The court found that the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant were joint proprietors of the suit property prior to its transfer and that the Plaintiff had a plausible claim of co-investment, supported by the existence of a joint bank account and her involvement in the management and rental of the property. The 1st Defendant's explanation that the Plaintiff was merely a trustee for his children was not credible, as this was not reflected on the title and contradicted the conduct of the parties. The transfer of the property to the 1st Defendant's children was effected without the Plaintiff's genuine…
Source excerpt
Hariprasad Rambhai Patel v Babubhai Kalidas Patel (Civil Suit 981 of 1990) [1996] UGHC 58 (25 June 1996)
The High Court held that the plaintiff had paid half the purchase price and was a co-owner of the property. The defendant's resulting trust and fraud claims failed.
Hariprasad Rambhai Patel v Babubhai Kalidas Patel (Civil Suit 981 of 1990) [1996] UGHCLD 3 (25 June 1996)
The High Court held that the plaintiff owned half the property, rejected fraud and resulting trust claims, revoked the power of attorney, and ordered rent accounting.
