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
Mandera v Hyensi (Civil Suit 136 of 2021) [2024] UGHCCD 95 (10 June 2024)
The High Court held the defendant liable for the unpaid balance of a friendly loan, but rejected a claim for an additional settlement sum and found no proof the plaintiff sold the collateral.
Nassimbwa v Magala & Another (Civil Suit 830 of 2022) [2024] UGCommC 133 (18 April 2024)
The High Court declined to award the bank costs after the parties settled by consent, holding the loan rescheduled clause did not cover this suit's costs.
Bank of Africa v Kalule & Ors; Gulberg Hides & Skins Ltd v Bank of Africa (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 126 of 2021) [2021] UGCommC 123 (30 November 2021)
The High Court held that Civil Suit No. 243 of 2017 was not res judicata and allowed Bank of Africa to amend its counterclaim to add UGX 477,000,000.
Belge S.A. v Sibilia (C.A. 21/1934) [1934] EACA 1 (1 January 1934)
The Court held that the respondent was entitled under Rule 30 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1925, to contest the entire judgment and not merely the portion appealed by the appellants. Evidence admitted outside the pleadings was properly adjudicated upon as both parties addressed arguments on it and did not object. The trial judge correctly applied Field v. Carr in finding that the appellants, having appropriated notes A and D to the credit of Jivanjee Bros., could not recover their value from the respondent. Exhibit 11 was construed to provide for the promissory notes as continuing security f…
Source excerpt
Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Begum (C.C. 134/1932.) [1932] EACA 39 (1 January 1932)
The court held that the plaintiff, The Standard Bank of South Africa, Ltd., was correctly described and had standing to sue. The promissory notes passed in respect of monthly instalments were collateral security, not payment. The deposit of Sh. 2,000 was a reasonable guarantee for performance and could be forfeited upon rescission. Instalments paid by the defendant under the contract constituted a benefit received and, under section 64 of the Indian Contract Act, must be restored to the defendant. However, since the defendant occupied the premises without paying rent, the plaintiff was entitl…
Source excerpt
