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
Attorney General v Tandeka (Miscellaneous Application 25 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 930 (1 October 2024)
The High Court allowed a government application to deposit compensation in court for EACOP-related land acquisition, where some owners refused payment or had unresolved disputes.
Muhwezi v Uganda National Roads Authority (Civil Suit 86 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 142 (3 November 2023)
The High Court held that UNRA compulsorily acquired the plaintiff’s land for a road project without prior adequate compensation and awarded market-value compensation, general damages, interest, and costs.
Bategeka Growers Coop Society Limited v Kiragwa and 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 207 (29 September 2022)
The appeal was determined on the basis that the Chief Magistrate's court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a suit involving compensation of Ugx 66,684,000/=. The addition of the Respondents as parties was not illegal under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as their presence was necessary for complete adjudication of the ownership and compensation issues. The doctrine of res judicata did not apply, as the L.C III judgment was not rendered by a competent court and did not involve the same subject matter or parties. The proceedings and orders of the Magistrate's court were d…
Source excerpt
Sunday v Byakatonda (Miscellaneous Cause No. 75 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCD 162 (3 December 2021)
The High Court held that UNRA unlawfully withheld compensation payable to estate administrators, and ordered payment of UGX 207,255,191 within 15 days.
Uganda National Roads Authority v Nakate and 3 Others (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 96 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 104 (7 September 2021)
The High Court dismissed UNRA’s interpleader application over compensation for land acquired for the Buhimba-Kakumiro road project, but allowed construction to continue.
Muhebwa Vs Fortportal Municipal Council (HCT – 01 – CV – CS – 006 OF 2012) [2018] UGHCCD 76 (19 December 2018)
The High Court held that Muhebwa Alex complied with the permission to develop a filling station and was wrongly stopped by Fort Portal Municipal Council.
Kisoro Town Council & Another v Zungu (Civil Appeal 3 of 2012) [2015] UGHC 5 (4 June 2015)
The court found that the respondent's mother, Matilda Kanazi Mbonigaba, had established possession of the suit land, and her gift of the land to the respondent was valid under customary law. The evidence showed continuous possession by the family and a caretaker, with no credible proof from the appellants that the land was government property or that the respondent's claim was fabricated. The court held that the absence of formal approval for the transfer did not invalidate the gift, given the lack of a prescribed authority under the law. The Town Council's acquisition and plotting of the lan…
Source excerpt
Tabitha Lalango Lutara v Attorney General (HCT - 02 - CV - CS- 0033 - 2007) [2010] UGHC 238 (30 July 2010)
The High Court held that the claim for compensation over the seized Anaka Ranch was time barred and dismissed the suit, despite finding seizure and loss proved.
Attorney General v Virchand Mithalal & Sons Ltd [2009] UGSC 13 (21 April 2009)
The Supreme Court held that the award of compound interest was not justified by the facts or law. There was no evidence that the government misused or profited from the compensation sum owed to the respondent, nor was there any agreement or legal principle implying compound interest in this context. The distinction between simple and compound interest is substantive: simple interest is awarded for delay in payment of a debt, while compound interest requires evidence of misuse or enrichment by the liable party. The lower courts erred in treating the award of compound interest as a matter of di…
Source excerpt
Attorney General v Virchand Mithalal and Sons Limited (Civil Appeal 126 of 2003) [2006] UGCA 51 (4 August 2006)
The Court of Appeal held that the award of compound interest by the trial judge was a proper exercise of judicial discretion. The appellant, as a fiduciary, received the compensation money in 1988 but failed to pass it to the respondent or pay it into court, despite repeated demands and the completion of the sale. The court found the appellant's justification for withholding the money implausible and contrary to Article 26(2)(i) of the Constitution, which requires prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation prior to acquisition of property. The court affirmed that compound interest may b…
Source excerpt
