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
Kazooba v Mugisha (Civil Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 400 (31 May 2024)
The High Court ordered DNA paternity testing for two children, issued a protection order against violence, and allowed limited supervised access to the matrimonial home.
Mbusa Okoth v Bafiriwala (Miscellaneous Application 1025 of 2022) [2023] UGHCFD 14 (8 May 2023)
The High Court dismissed an application to stay execution in a family dispute, finding no proof of substantial loss, no draft appeal, and no security offered.
Okoth v Bafirawala (Civil Appeal 13 of 2021) [2022] UGHCFD 24 (15 September 2022)
The High Court found that the Magistrate Grade One had jurisdiction to entertain Divorce Cause No. 17 of 2017 under section 3(1) of the Divorce Act since both parties are Africans, regardless of the value of the property in contention. The appellant's absence from subsequent hearings was deemed willful, and the trial Magistrate was justified in proceeding ex parte. The only evidence available was that of the petitioner, which was properly evaluated, as the appellant failed to present any evidence or substantiate her pleadings. The orders issued by the trial Magistrate were found to be just an…
Source excerpt
W H and Another v N E (Divorce Appeal No. 1 of 2019) [2020] UGHCFD 10 (30 November 2020)
The High Court dismissed a divorce appeal over possession of a matrimonial home, upholding the finding that the property was joint matrimonial property and that the alleged sale was a sham.
Re: Application For Guardianship of Oja Martin Kenyi Peter (A Minor) (Family Cause No. 124 of 2009) [2009] UGHC 74 (6 October 2009)
The court found that the applicant is the natural father and custodian of the minor, who is the registered proprietor of the property in question. The applicant's intention to mortgage the property is for the benefit of the minor's education and maintenance. The evidence showed the applicant purchased the property, registered it in the child's name, and holds the title. There is no evidence of any adverse interest. Applying the paramountcy of child welfare under the Children Act, the court determined that granting the application is in the best interests of the child. The applicant is therefo…
Source excerpt
