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
Kinalwa v Compuscan CRB Limited (Civil Suit 237 of 2020) [2024] UGHCCD 18 (25 January 2024)
The High Court dismissed an employee’s claim for commission, deceit, misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, finding no proof of qualifying new business.
Odongo v FUFA Super League Ltd & Anor (CIVIL SUIT NO. 244 OF 2015) [2019] UGHCCD 41 (20 February 2019)
The High Court dismissed a claim for commission arising from a FUFA Super League sponsorship deal, holding that the plaintiff proved no contract with either defendant.
Simba Telecom Ltd v Karuhanga & Anor (HCCS 242 of 2011) [2015] UGCommC 81 (15 May 2015)
Commercial dispute over telecom distribution accounts ended with the court adopting a joint audit, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim, and awarding the defendants UGX 22,428,081.
Metropolitan Properties Ltd v Mugume (misc. Applic. No. 120 OF 2013) [2013] UGHC 257 (21 August 2013)
The High Court held that the defendant breached a deed of acknowledgment and undertaking, ordered repayment of Ug. Shs.100,000,000/=, and dismissed the counterclaim.
Chris Bigirwa Rutaremwa v Godfrey Ngobi T/A Uni-Engineers Co (HCT-00-CC-CS 247 of 2003) [2008] UGCommC 34 (23 June 2008)
The court found that neither party discharged the burden of proof to establish their respective versions of the relationship—whether the plaintiff was a commission agent or a gratis apprentice. There was no written agreement or independent corroboration. The court found it improbable that a business owner would entrust a major contract to a gratis apprentice, but equally, the plaintiff failed to prove he was a commission agent. Consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to the claimed commission. On the counterclaim, the court accepted the plaintiff's explanation that funds drawn were for b…
Source excerpt
Eber v Thomsen (C.A. 1/1935) [1935] EACA 34 (1 January 1935)
The Court of Appeal held that the appellant's conduct in pressing for a reduced commission and threatening to dispense with the respondent's services amounted to an anticipatory breach of the agency contract. The evidence showed the appellant intended to continue trading in the contract area, thus depriving the respondent of his right to earn commission under the agreed terms. The respondent was justified in treating the contract as repudiated and suing for damages. Alleged misconduct or negligence by the respondent did not bar recovery, as the appellant had condoned such conduct by not actin…
Source excerpt
