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
Edward Ssenteza v Cyril Kambarage Chigange and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1662 of 2024) [2025] UGHCLD 84 (12 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed a miscellaneous application for a hearing date after the applicant disowned it and his former advocates had withdrawn.
Owor v Nareo & 3 Others (Civil Appeal 41 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 78 (3 March 2025)
The High Court allowed a land appeal, set aside a trial court finding of trespass and damages, and held that the appellant owned the disputed customary land.
Turinawe Rwangomani and 2 Others v Nkuuna and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 118 of 2023; Miscellaneous Application 42 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 89 (24 January 2025)
The court held that a counter claim, being a separate suit, must be pleaded together with the written statement of defence or with leave of court if introduced later. In this case, the respondents did not include a counter claim in their original defence and only introduced it in response to the further amended plaint without seeking leave of court. The Civil Procedure Rules do not permit a defendant to introduce a new counter claim in a reply to an amended plaint unless it was part of the original pleadings or leave is granted. The authorities cited, including Kavuma & Anor v Stanbic Bank (U…
Source excerpt
Ntende v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 1447 of 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 261 (7 November 2024)
The court found that the Applicant had sufficient interest in the subject matter of the litigation, as her rights in the suit land were directly affected by the alleged illegal mortgage without spousal consent, thereby granting her locus standi to bring the application. The court further held that, under the Civil Procedure Rules, a counter-claim must be directed against the Plaintiff and cannot be maintained solely against a co-defendant. The Respondent's reliance on provisions allowing the addition of parties to a counter-claim was misconceived, as the rules do not permit a counter-claim so…
Source excerpt
Kiggala and 3 Others v Henry Panel Works Limited and 2 others (Miscellaneous Criminal Application 2820 of 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 257 (23 October 2024)
The High Court held that filing a new application to amend a counterclaim while a preliminary objection was pending was an abuse of process, and rejected the amendment.
Kizito v Wamala & 2 Others (Civil Appeal 8 of 2019) [2024] UGSC 20 (31 May 2024)
The Supreme Court found that the appellant's acquisition of Plot 1128 was tainted with fraud, as evidenced by expert reports indicating forged signatures and inconsistencies in the sale agreements and payment records. The court held that the respondents met the requisite standard of proof for fraud, justifying the cancellation of the appellant's title to Plot 1128. However, the court also found that the caveat on Plot 1127 was wrongfully maintained by the respondents, as the appellant had lawfully acquired that plot and there was no controversy regarding its ownership. The appellant was there…
Source excerpt
Kangave v King Albert Distillers Limited (Civil Suit 4 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 221 (19 April 2024)
The court found that the written statement of defense and counter claim were filed within the statutory period, thus competent. On the substantive issues, the court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an agency contract or a contract of hire of motor vehicles with the defendant. The evidence showed the plaintiff operated as an independent stockist/distributor, not as an agent under the defendant's control, and there was no credible evidence of commission payments or agency terms. The plaintiff also failed to prove ownership or the defendant's possession of the disputed ve…
Source excerpt
Duncan Kizito Sematimba v The Board of Governors Kings College Buddo (Miscellaneous Application No. 458 of 2025) [2024] UGHCLD 302 (11 April 2024)
The court found that its previous ruling in HCMA No. 2677 of 2024 adhered to the established principles governing amendment of pleadings, as set out in Gaso Transport Services and related authorities. The applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record, as the court had properly considered the law and evidence before granting the amendment. The applicant's remedy, if dissatisfied, lies in appeal rather than review. Consequently, the application for review lacked merit and was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Nakayondo & Another v Namagambe (Miscellaneous Application 1 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1196 (23 January 2024)
The court found that the proposed defendants, except Kamya Sekamwa, were already parties to the suit as counter defendants and that their addition as defendants in the main suit would be redundant. The applicant failed to demonstrate the relevance of Kamya Sekamwa to the determination of the main suit, and the court noted that either party could summon him as a witness if necessary. Regarding amendment of the plaint, the court held that the intended amendment was unnecessary and redundant, as the issues the applicant sought to introduce were already pleaded in the counter claim and defence. T…
Source excerpt
Nakanwagi v Mawejje and 2 Others (Civil Suit 770 of 2016) [2023] UGHCLD 215 (27 July 2023)
The High Court held that the defendants acquired no lawful kibanja interest in the suit land, declared them trespassers, and awarded the plaintiff damages and injunction.
