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
Okitela Joseph v Opoli Patrick (Civil Appeal No.14O of 2013) [2025] UGCA 245 (21 July 2025)
Second appeal struck out as incompetent because the grounds were vague and factual, contrary to the rules and limits on second appeals.
Kiiza Luka and Others v Kitswamba Sub County Local Government and Kasese District Land Board (Civil Appeal No. 94 of 2015) [2025] UGCA 210 (26 June 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that the appellants failed to disclose a cause of action in their plaint. The evidence showed that the suit land was public land held in trust by the District Land Board, and the appellants, as traders with lock-ups, did not have customary ownership rights over the land. The sub-county's resolution to sell the market plot had not been implemented, and the controlling authority responsible for the land had changed since the institution of the suit. The Court held that the trial Judge was justified in striking out the suit for disclosing no cause of action, as the appe…
Source excerpt
Wafula Mukasa Samuel v Peter Buchunju and Others (Civil Appeal No. 0021 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 431 (29 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding that the appellant failed to prove ownership on a balance of probabilities and that the magistrate had properly evaluated the evidence.
Registered Trustees of Sebei Diocese at Chemwania Church of Uganda v Satya (Civil Appeal 58 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 264 (8 May 2025)
The court held that for an entity to have legal capacity to sue or be sued as a registered trustee, it must be incorporated under the Trustees Incorporation Act and possess a certificate of incorporation. The Respondent, having sued the Appellant as a registered entity, bore the burden of proving its legal personality, which was not discharged as no certificate of incorporation was produced. The absence of legal personality rendered the proceedings in the lower court and the appeal a nullity. The principle that illegality may be raised at any stage and, once established, overrides all other m…
Source excerpt
Lapyem James Ochola v Aromorach Catherine (Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 528 (6 March 2025)
High Court land appeal dismissed after re-evaluating evidence, holding that alleged contradictions were minor, the respondent had possession, and the gift of unregistered land was valid.
Lapyem v Aromorach (Civil Appeal 40 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 81 (6 March 2025)
The High Court, as a first appellate court, re-evaluated all the evidence and found that the contradictions in the respondent's case were minor and immaterial to the determination of ownership. The evidence, including physical features observed at the locus in quo, supported the respondent's claim of possession and use of the suit land prior to the appellant's entry in 2020. The appellant failed to prove long and peaceful possession or to show physical evidence of prior occupation. The law on gifts inter vivos for unregistered land does not require a written instrument; exclusive occupation a…
Source excerpt
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.
Latom v Anyang (Civil Appeal 64 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 44 (17 February 2025)
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove ownership or trespass and could retain only 3 gardens, about 4.5 acres.
Omare & 7 Others v Imalingat (Civil Appeal 94 of 2023) [2025] UGCA 51 (14 February 2025)
The Court of Appeal struck out a second appeal for being filed out of time and without compliance with mandatory appellate procedure, leaving the merits unaddressed.
Akison & Another v Soyekwo & Another (Civil Appeal 148 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 40 (10 February 2025)
The High Court partly allowed a land appeal, set aside the lower court’s orders, and declared the appellants the rightful owners of the disputed customary land.
