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
Sekyaaya v Kayanja and 2 Others (HCT-01-LD-MA 1552 of 2021) [2022] UGHCLD 264 (6 October 2022)
The High Court dismissed an application to release deposited compensation funds to a claimant who was not a party to the land suit determining ownership.
Kyakimwa Sauda & Another V Eco Power Holdings Limited (EDT COMPLAINT 5 of 2019) [2022] UGEDT 1 (23 May 2022)
The Tribunal dismissed a land compensation complaint, finding the valuation process proper, the delay excessive, and a re-evaluation impractical after later development.
Nansubuga v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Civil Suit No. 1013 of 2018) [2021] UGHCLD 165 (12 November 2021)
The Plaintiff's suit was dismissed on two grounds: first, the claim for adequacy of compensation for land acquired for electricity infrastructure must be initiated before the Electricity Regulatory Authority and, if aggrieved, appealed to the Electricity Disputes Tribunal, with the High Court only having appellate jurisdiction. The Plaintiff commenced the suit directly in the High Court, which is the wrong forum. Second, the suit was filed more than 60 days after the compensation award, contrary to Section 13 of the Land Acquisition Act Cap 226, and the Plaintiff did not plead any grounds for…
Source excerpt
Uganda National Roads Authority v Nakabba and 6 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 95 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 103 (7 September 2021)
The High Court allowed UNRA’s interpleader application and ordered UGX 105,505,140 deposited in court pending resolution of the land ownership dispute.
Kisoro Municipal Council and Another v Zungu (Civil Appeal 294 of 2016) [2020] UGCA 2151 (25 June 2020)
The Court of Appeal held that the appellants' claim to the disputed land based on a statutory lease was invalid, as such leases were revoked by Article 286 of the 1995 Constitution. The respondent, as a citizen and either a customary owner or bona fide occupant, was entitled to security of occupancy and could apply for registration or compensation. The trial and first appellate courts made concurrent findings of fact regarding the respondent's right to the land, which could not be challenged in a second appeal limited to points of law. The appellants failed to establish any lawful basis for t…
Source excerpt
