Uganda Case Law

Semambo v Tumukunde

Semambo v Tumukunde (Civil Appeal 38 of 2018) [2024] UGHCCD 117 (17 July 2024)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Appeal 38 of 2018

Judge

Boniface Wamala, J

The High Court found that the trial Chief Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence, correctly rejected the unreliable valuation report, and based the award of general damages on uncontested evidence of property destruction by the Appellant. The court clarified that general damages do not require the same proof as special damages and are awarded at the court's discretion to compensate for the natural consequences of the wrongful act. The appellate court will only interfere with such an award if it is based on a wrong principle or is manifestly excessive or inadequate, which was not the case…

Source excerpt

• Assessment Of General Damages
• Oral Rental Agreements
• Evidence Evaluation
• Damages For Property Destruction

Ocen Kassim vs Soroti District Land Board and another

Ocen Kassim vs Soroti District Land Board and another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2019) [2022] UGHC 99 (2 November 2022)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2019

Judge

Adonyo, J

The High Court of Uganda found the respondents in contempt for evicting the applicant during a stay of execution, and awarded damages, fines, sequestration, and costs.

• Contempt Of Court
• Stay Of Execution
• Eviction Proceedings
• Damages For Property Destruction
• Contempt-of-court
• Stay-of-execution

Kihanga and 5 Others v Nalweyiso and 3 Others

Kihanga and 5 Others v Nalweyiso and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 9 of 2020) [2022] UGHCLD 304 (13 April 2022)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 9 of 2020

Judge

Ojok, J

The court found that while a valid court order existed granting both the applicants and the 1st respondent rights to utilize the suit land, the applicants failed to prove that the respondents, other than the 1st respondent, were aware of the order or disobeyed it. The 1st respondent was found to be acting within the scope of the court order by utilizing the 3.5 acres decreed to her. There was no evidence of contempt by any respondent, as the order had not been varied or discharged and the applicants did not demonstrate disobedience. Consequently, the application for contempt was dismissed, an…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Execution Of Judgments
• Land Occupation Rights
• Damages For Property Destruction