Nansikombi v Mugalu (Civil Appeal 85 of 2017) [2023] UGHCLD 217 (28 July 2023)
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
Civil Appeal 85 of 2017
Judge
Bernard Namanya, J
The High Court held that the plaintiffs held a Kibanja interest on the suit land, which survived later title transfers, and granted an injunction, damages, and costs.
Mayiga Vs Kalule (Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2012) [2019] UGCA 20 (29 March 2019)
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Case number
Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2012
The Court of Appeal held that since the transaction for the sale of family land was void for lack of spousal consent under section 39(1) of the Land Act, the appellant's only remedy is to claim a refund from the party with whom he contracted, namely the first defendant (the respondent's husband). However, as the first defendant was not a party to the appeal and did not appeal the trial court's decision, the appellate court could not make an order against him. The court emphasized that making an order against a non-party would violate the right to a fair hearing under the Constitution. Therefo…
Abaho Tumushabe v Beinababo (Civil Appeal 35 of 1995) [1996] UGHCLD 5 (6 December 1996)
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
Civil Appeal 35 of 1995
Judge
Rosette Comfort Kania, J
The High Court allowed an appeal over a land sale dispute, holding the trial court had not properly evaluated the evidence and setting aside its orders.
Butagira v Namukasa (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1989) [1990] UGSC 26 (18 July 1990)
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Case number
Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1989
Judge
Wambuzi, CJ, Odoki, JSC, Platt, JSC
The Supreme Court held that the absence of consent under Section 22(5)(c) of the Public Lands Act rendered the transfer of the leasehold property voidable, not void ab initio, and only the controlling authority could enforce such breaches. The appellant was found to have breached the covenants of the lease by failing to pay rent and subletting without the lessor's consent. Relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent was not available to the appellant, as the breach was not solely for non-payment and the relevant statutory provisions did not apply where re-entry was effected by an indivi…