Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 06:11 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

30 Mar 2016

Constitutional Law [2016] UGHCCD 31

Leads Insurance Company v Attorney General

Leads Insurance Company v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 056 of 2015) [2016] UGHCCD 31 (30 March 2016)

Court: HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number: Civil Suit No. 056 of 2015
Judge: Musota, J

The defendant, through its agents, acted illegally and unconstitutionally by failing to comply with a valid court order requiring the release of the plaintiff's land titles. This defiance undermined the authority and effectiveness of the judiciary, violated the plaintiff's constitutional right to property, and caused significant business loss and inconvenience. The court found that the defendant's actions were reckless and malicious, warranting punitive damages. The plaintiff was entitled to general damages for the inconvenience and deprivation suffered, but special damages were not strictly…

Source excerpt

Contempt Of Court
Right To Property
Failure To Comply With Court Order
Damages For Unconstitutional Action
Company Separate Legal Personality
Judicial Independence

Read case analysis

14 Jun 2007

Tax Law [2007] UGCommC 60

Bakwanye Trading Co. Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCT-00-CC-CS 602 of 2006)

Bakwanye Trading Co. Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCT-00-CC-CS 602 of 2006) [2007] UGCommC 60 (14 June 2007)

Court: Commercial Court of Uganda
Case number: HCT-00-CC-CS 602 of 2006

The court found that the plaintiff, Bakwanye Trading Co. Ltd, failed to disclose a cause of action against the defendant, Uganda Revenue Authority, because the tax invoices relied upon for the VAT refund claim were issued to entities distinct from the plaintiff. The VAT Act requires that tax invoices supporting a refund claim must be in the name of the claimant. The plaintiff's management of Caltex Rwenzori Service Station did not create a sufficient legal link to the invoices, and there was no evidence of assignment of rights from the entities named on the invoices to the plaintiff. Allowing…