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
Sari Consulting Limited v Francis Magambe Byaruhanga (Civil Suit No. 543 of 2020) [2025] UGCommC 180 (15 April 2025)
The High Court held that a share-sale contract was valid and that COVID-19 disruption to a related subcontract did not frustrate the payment obligation. The Defendant was found in breach.
Kama v Mayanja aka Pallaso (Civil Suit 725 of 2022) [2024] UGCommC 327 (6 September 2024)
The High Court held that an artist management contract was void because the plaintiff’s business was not registered and lacked capacity to contract.
Tumuhimbise v Turyamwijukye & 4 Others (Company Complaint 32897 of 2024) [2024] UGRSB 14 (16 July 2024)
The Registrar of Companies dismissed a company complaint, holding that the claims on directors’ duties, diverted business, and penalties fell outside the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Hon.Justice Prof G. W. Kanyeihamba and 320 Others v Nzeyi and Others (Civil Appeal 189 of 2014) [2023] UGCA 189 (27 July 2023)
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on both procedural and substantive grounds. The majority of the grounds of appeal were struck out for failing to comply with Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, as they were vague and did not specify the points alleged to have been wrongly decided. On the merits, the court found that the trial judge properly evaluated the evidence and correctly applied the law regarding the change of name and amendments to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Kigezi Bank of Commerce. The court held that the requirements for a representative action under O…
Source excerpt
Malkara v Skyrocket Agency Co. Limited & 5 Others (Civil Suit 240 of 2023; Civil Suit 305 of 2023; Civil Suit 345 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 158 (17 July 2023)
The High Court held that the plaintiff remained owner of the goods, voided the later sale for illegality, found breach by the 3rd defendant, and granted release, injunction, damages and costs.
Ntinda Industrial Estate Development Association Limited v Kampala General Furnishing Limited (Miscellaneous Application 424 of 2021) [2023] UGHCLD 141 (31 May 2023)
The High Court struck out a plaint brought by a shareholder against a company because the claim should have been brought by petition under the Companies Act.
Eng. Kamanyire T/A Stanley Technical Services Limited v UMEME and Another (EDT COMPLAINT 4 of 2014) [2015] UGEDT 1 (21 October 2015)
The tribunal held that the complaint was filed by a non-existent party, namely Eng. Kamanyire t/a Stanley Technical Services Ltd, which has no legal existence or capacity to sue. While procedural irregularities such as citing the wrong rule or delay in amendment are not fatal if the tribunal has jurisdiction and no prejudice is shown, the fundamental defect of lack of legal existence is a matter of law, not procedure. The tribunal cannot sanction an illegality, and a suit by a non-existent entity is a nullity ab initio. Consequently, the complaint must be struck out, and no amendment or subst…
Source excerpt
Gamukama and Another v Triple Mpungu General Trading Store Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 17 of 2003) [2012] UGHC 423 (10 May 2012)
The High Court held that Triple Mpungu Traders was a three-person partnership and that the later registration of Triple Mpungu General Trading Store Ltd as proprietor was fraudulent.
New Honest Enterprises Ltd v Hassan Opio T/A Acholi Ber Hardware and OT Nyonyo Enterprises (Civil Suit No. 0031 of 2009) [2012] UGHC 427 (5 April 2012)
The court found that the Defendant was indeed indebted to the Plaintiff for the sum claimed, as the evidence showed that the Defendant obtained goods on credit and issued cheques that bounced or were not honored. The Defendant's argument that the cheques were replacements was not credible, as he failed to retrieve the bounced cheques or provide satisfactory proof of payment. The court rejected the Defendant's contention that payments to Mayur Ruparel were not for the Plaintiff, noting that the Defendant's own pleadings acknowledged Mayur as the Plaintiff's agent. The court also found the rece…
Source excerpt
John Kibyami v Mission & Relief Transport Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 236 of 2006) [2006] UGCommC 49 (5 December 2006)
The High Court allowed amendment of a plaint to delete “Limited” from the defendant’s name, treating the error as a misnomer rather than a substitution of parties.
