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
Ssenono and Another v Mutabaazi (Civil Appeal 73 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 220 (20 April 2025)
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, upholding findings that the respondent validly bought the disputed kibanja, the later sale was void, and the first appellant trespassed.
Kiggundu a.k.a Bruno K v Black Market Records Entertainment - SMC Limited & 3 Others (Civil Suit 1025 of 2022) [2025] UGCommC 42 (1 April 2025)
The High Court held a recording agreement void for lack of contractual capacity and found the 4th defendant liable for copyright infringement and royalty misuse.
Volcano Limited v Board of Governors Old Kampala Secondary School (Civil Suit 436 of 2018) [2024] UGHCLD 297 (19 December 2024)
The High Court held the tenancy contract void for lack of mandatory Attorney General clearance, but awarded Volcano Limited UGX 84 million for minor repairs.
B. J Consults Limited v Attorney General (Civil Suit 365 of 2020) [2024] UGCommC 328 (14 October 2024)
The court found that for a contract with a public entity to be valid under Ugandan law, it must comply strictly with the procedures set out in the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act (PPDA Act). In this case, there was no evidence that the Ministry of Education and Sports followed the required procurement procedures, such as bid solicitation, evaluation, and contracts committee approval. The Plaintiff failed to prove that a valid contract, as defined by the PPDA Act, existed between the parties. The court held that non-compliance with the PPDA Act is fatal to the validity of…
Source excerpt
Wakwale & Another v Bumutsukhu Financial Services (U) Limited (Civil Appeal 106 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 897 (30 September 2024)
The High Court partly allowed a civil appeal, set aside the trial court’s orders, and held that the respondent had not proved an enforceable loan claim against the appellants.
Equator Touring Services Limited v Kampala Capital City Authority (Civil Appeal 119 of 2014) [2024] UGCA 212 (15 August 2024)
The Court of Appeal upheld a finding that the market-management contract was void for non-compliance with procurement law and dismissed the appeal.
Mpanga and Another v Sebugwawo and Another (Civil Suit 436 of 2016) [2023] UGHCLD 381 (8 November 2023)
The court held that the existence of an arbitration clause in the memorandum of understanding is not disputed. The challenge to its enforceability based on the alleged illegality of the underlying contract does not automatically render the arbitration clause invalid. Section 16(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides that an arbitration clause is independent of the other terms of the contract, and its validity is not affected by a decision that the contract is null and void. The court further relied on precedent to affirm that disputes about the validity of the contract itself…
Source excerpt
Muhanguzi v Attorney General (HCT-05-LD-CS 43 of 2019) [2023] UGHC 126 (20 October 2023)
The High Court held that the government had a valid contract to buy Mitoma Vocational Secondary School, breached it by non-payment, and awarded damages, costs, and restoration of control to the owner.
Obila v Ochura and Another (Civil Appeal 30 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 257 (23 January 2023)
The High Court allowed an appeal over a disputed land transaction, finding the alleged sale agreement defective and holding that the arrangement was not a sale.
Rugo Farm Company v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (Reference No.14 of 2018) [2022] EACJ 3 (7 April 2022) (First Instance Division)
The East African Court of Justice has jurisdiction to determine the legality of Partner State actions alleged to infringe the Treaty, even if arising from domestic court decisions, provided the Reference challenges Treaty compliance. The Reference was filed within the prescribed two-month period after notification of the impugned decision. The contract for the sale of land by Ruzizi Company to the Applicant was legal, supported by government authorization and registration, and not contradicted by evidence from the Respondent. The Special Court of Lands and Other Assets violated Article 230(3)…
Source excerpt
