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, 04:02 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

30 Aug 2023

Commercial And Corporate [2023] UGCommC 249

Kirugi v Masiko

Kirugi v Masiko (Civil Suit 457 of 2021) [2023] UGCommC 249 (30 August 2023)

Court: Commercial Court of Uganda
Case number: Civil Suit 457 of 2021
Judge: Anna B. Mugenyi, J

The court found that while money was exchanged between the Plaintiff and Defendant, the evidence did not establish a clear, consistent pattern or purpose supporting the existence of a contract or partnership for the development of Kasubi Forest Cottages. The Plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the funds were advanced for hotel development rather than for shared living expenses or other personal reasons. The irregular nature of the transactions, lack of documentation, and inconsistencies in both parties' testimonies undermined the Plaintiff's claim. The court held th…

Source excerpt

Partnership Disputes
Contract Existence
Burden Of Proof
Joint Ventures

Read case analysis

14 Apr 2020

Commercial And Corporate [2020] UGHCCD 51

Infrastructure Projects Ltd v Meja Properties Ltd

Infrastructure Projects Ltd v Meja Properties Ltd (CIVIL SUIT NO 2351 OF 2016) [2020] UGHCCD 51 (14 April 2020)

Court: HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number: CIVIL SUIT NO 2351 OF 2016
Judge: Musa Ssekaana, J

The court found that there was no valid contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The purported agreement was executed between husband and wife, who were directors of the respective companies, and was not disclosed to the new majority shareholder. The evidence showed that the defendant did not own the land at the time of the alleged contract, and the agreement was likely manufactured and backdated to defraud the defendant and its new shareholder. The court also held that the agreement was inadmissible as evidence due to non-payment of stamp duty, contravening the Stamp Duty Act. The c…