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
Nambasa & 4 Others v Nkoola (Miscellaneous Application 1412 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 11 (13 January 2025)
The High Court dismissed an out-of-time application for leave to defend a summary suit, despite noting triable issues in the draft defence.
Shashi Super Investments Limited v Cipla Quality Chemical Industries Limited (Miscellaneous Application 70 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 521 (24 May 2024)
The court found that service of the Summons and Plaint in Civil Suit No. 68 of 2022 was properly and effectively effected on the Applicant through a combination of personal service at Allied Pharmacy, postal service to the registered address, and electronic service via Whatsapp, all of which are recognized and permissible modes under Ugandan law. The Applicant's denial of service was contradicted by its own conduct in responding to a Notice to Show Cause delivered at the same location and by the process server's documented efforts. The court held that the Applicant's evasive behavior did not…
Source excerpt
Jinja City Council v Infrastructure Development & Management Limited (Miscellaneous Application 103 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 54 (13 March 2024)
The High Court granted Jinja City Council unconditional leave to defend a summary suit, finding the draft defence raised bona fide triable issues.
Barore Company Limited v Katamba & Another (Civil Suit 11 of 2019) [2024] UGCommC 17 (25 January 2024)
The High Court found the defendants still owed a fuel supplier UGX 94,599,758 on bounced cheques and rejected their overpayment counterclaim.
City Oil (U) Ltd v Roko Construction Ltd (Civil Suit No. 1086 of 2020) [2021] UGCommC 101 (3 September 2021)
The High Court entered judgment for City Oil for UGX 237.6 million for fuel supplied to Roko Construction, plus 6% interest from judgment and costs.
HN Developers Ltd v Prayosha Enterprises Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 383 of 2018) [2020] UGCommC 7 (20 March 2020)
The court found that the applicant had raised triable issues of fact and law, including disputes over the existence of a contract, the amount due, and the interest charged. The applicant's documents, including an intended written statement of defence, denied indebtedness and the contractual relationship alleged by the respondent. The court noted that the applicant's letter admitted some indebtedness but also that there were differences in the amounts claimed and the interest rates. Applying the principles from Makula Interglobal Trade Agency vs Bank of Uganda and Bunjo vs KCB Bank Uganda Ltd,…
Source excerpt
Cactus Africa Ltd & Ors v Kampala Motors Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 572 of 2015) [2016] UGCommC 26 (21 March 2016)
The court found that the first Applicant, Cactus Africa Ltd, failed to disclose any plausible defence to the Respondent's claim for US$15,400 for motorcycles supplied. The Local Purchase Order and delivery notes were in the name of the first Applicant, and there was no evidence of rejection or return of the motorcycles, nor any substantiated claim of defects. Accordingly, judgment was entered against the first Applicant. However, the second and third Applicants raised triable issues regarding their personal liability, as the documentary evidence did not establish that they ordered or received…
Source excerpt
Kabwanjare George v Bamutonda Rajab (HCT-05-CV-CS-0085-2000 ) (HCT-05-CV-CS-0085-2000) [2005] UGHC 120 (7 June 2005)
The High Court of Uganda awarded the plaintiff UGX 2,410,000 for an unpaid land-sale balance, with interest from judgment and each party bearing its own costs.
Mombasa Salt Works Limited and Another v Ali Madhi Osman t/a Camel Trade Promoters (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2002) [2003] UGCA 34 (8 May 2003)
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in striking out the amended plaint solely due to the failure to delete the business name 'Camel Trade Promoters' as previously ordered. The court found that this was a misnomer, not a substantive defect, and could have been corrected by amendment under section 103 of the Civil Procedure Act or Order 6 rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The pleadings and annexures, when read as a whole, made it clear who the intended defendant was, and the plaint disclosed a cause of action for breach of contract and unpaid debt. The trial judge's refusal…
Source excerpt
Transroad Ltd v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal 30 of 1995) [1996] UGSC 26 (4 March 1996)
The Supreme Court allowed an appeal over extension of time to register an English judgment, holding the High Court dealt with registrability too early.
