Uganda Case Law

Musinguzi and Another v Yahya

Musinguzi and Another v Yahya (Miscellaneous Application 10 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 43 (4 March 2025)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 10 of 2025

Judge

Stephen Mubiru, J

The court found that the applicants failed to prove any ground warranting the setting aside of the consent judgment. There was no evidence of misrepresentation by the respondent, as any alleged misadvice came from the applicants' own counsel and not the respondent. The applicants' mistaken belief about the debt was not shown to be known or exploited by the respondent, and any mistake was based on personal opinion rather than a palpable, factual error. Regarding limitation, the court held that part payments made by the applicants, particularly the payment on 2nd December, 2020, restarted the l…

Source excerpt

• Consent Judgment
• Setting Aside Judgment
• Limitation Periods
• Contractual Mistake
• Misrepresentation
• Loan Disputes

Kalamuzi v Sentongo

Kalamuzi v Sentongo (Civil Suit No. 393 of 2008) [2014] UGHCLD 109 (8 July 2014)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit No. 393 of 2008

Judge

Luswata, J

The High Court upheld a land sale agreement, rejected an illiteracy objection, and found a common mistake about acreage. It set the contract aside on equitable terms.

• Sale Of Land
• Specific Performance
• Contractual Mistake
• Remedies
• Title Transfer
• Land-sale

Ajanta Pharma Ltd v Attorney General & Anor (Arbitration Cause No. 11 of 2011)

Ajanta Pharma Ltd v Attorney General & Anor (Arbitration Cause No. 11 of 2011) [2012] UGCommC 90 (16 August 2012)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Arbitration Cause No. 11 of 2011

Judge

Obura, J

The court found that the order terminating the arbitral proceedings was not an arbitral award within the meaning of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and thus section 34 did not apply. However, due to the absence of a statutory remedy for challenging such orders, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under the Judicature Act and Civil Procedure Act to address the applicant’s grievance. The agreement on arbitrator’s fees was vitiated by common mistake, as the Attorney General’s representative lacked authority to bind the government without accounting officer approval. The arbitrato…

Source excerpt

• Arbitral Award Definition
• Arbitrator Fees
• Contractual Mistake
• Public Policy Conflict
• Arbitrator Removal
• Arbitration Procedure

Insurance Company of East Africa (U) Limited v AIG (U) Limited

Insurance Company of East Africa (U) Limited v AIG (U) Limited (Civil Appeal 54 of 2004) [2009] UGCA 61 (5 August 2009)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 54 of 2004

Judge

Mpagi-Bahigeine, JA, Kitumba, JA, Byamugisha, JA

The Court of Appeal held that unpaid insurance premium could not be carried beyond 30 days under section 34, and rejected a common mistake defence.

• Insurance Contracts
• Reinsurance
• Contractual Mistake
• Premium Payment
• Remedies
• Estoppel