Uganda Case Law

Nowa Orieda v Mugabe and Another

Nowa Orieda v Mugabe and Another (Civil Suit 64 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 890 (9 August 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 64 of 2024

Judge

Byaruhanga Rugyema, J

The court found that the plaintiff proved customary ownership of the 300 acres of land at Kataaba village by first occupation and continuous use since 1967, corroborated by local witnesses and land committee members. The defendants fraudulently included the plaintiff's land in their certificate of title by failing to involve the appropriate area land committee, misrepresenting boundaries, and conducting the survey while the plaintiff and local chairman were detained on false allegations. The evidence established that the defendants' title covered land in both Kabwoya and Buseruka sub counties…

Source excerpt

• Customary Land Tenure
• Fraudulent Land Registration
• Declaration Of Ownership
• Injunctive Relief

Nokrach v Langoya

Nokrach v Langoya (Civil Suit 3 of 2019) [2024] UGHC 363 (23 May 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 3 of 2019

Judge

Phillip Odoki, J

The High Court in Gulu declared that disputed land in Pama Village belongs to the estate of the late Enoci Oweka, rejecting the defendant’s claim through Timothy Langoya.

• Customary Land Tenure
• Declaration Of Ownership
• Burden Of Proof
• Succession And Estates
• Customary-land-tenure
• Land-ownership

Tibezinda and 20 Others v Gahwera and 2 Others

Tibezinda and 20 Others v Gahwera and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 1 of 2023) [2023] UGHCLD 313 (13 October 2023)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause 1 of 2023

Judge

Serunkuma, J

The High Court revised a magistrate’s ruling, holding the suit was not just trespass but also involved ownership and recovery of land, beyond the magistrate’s jurisdiction.

• Pecuniary Jurisdiction
• Trespass To Land
• Recovery Of Land
• Declaration Of Ownership
• Revision Of Magistrate Decision
• Pecuniary-jurisdiction

Muziransa v Muhangi )

Muziransa v Muhangi ) (Civil Suit No.112 of 2000) [2003] UGHC 16 (23 October 2003)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit No.112 of 2000

The High Court of Uganda held that the plaintiff’s registered title was unchallenged and granted declaration, damages, injunction, and costs over Plot 23A Luwum Street.

• Registered Title
• Fraud Pleading Requirements
• Declaration Of Ownership
• Injunction Against Interference
• Registered-title
• Land-ownership

Lawrence Kyazze Musiitwa v Eunice Busingye

Lawrence Kyazze Musiitwa v Eunice Busingye (Civil Appeal 13 of 1990) [1991] UGSC 11 (19 April 1991)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 13 of 1990

Judge

Manyindo, DCJ, Oder, JSC, Seaton, JSC

The Supreme Court recognized that its prior judgment failed to address costs explicitly, both for the appeal and the High Court. Applying Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Court held that costs generally follow the event unless there is good reason to order otherwise. Given that the appeal succeeded only in part, with the respondent obtaining approximately half of the relief sought, it would be unjust to deprive her of all costs or to award her full costs. The Court determined that the proper course was to order that each party bear their own costs in both the appeal and the High Cou…

Source excerpt

• Costs Awards
• Appellate Review
• Mesne Profits
• Declaration Of Ownership

Mtashiwa v Mtashiwa

Mtashiwa v Mtashiwa (Civil Appeal No. 87 of 1955) [1950] EACA 52 (1 January 1950)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 87 of 1955

The Court of Appeal determined that the respondent's suit was fundamentally based on fraud, specifically the appellant's act of taking conveyance of the property in his own name despite the purchase money being provided by the respondent. The relevant limitation provision is article 91 of the Limitation Decree, which prescribes a three-year period for suits based on fraud. Since the respondent discovered the fraudulent act in December 1948 but instituted proceedings only in July 1953, the claim was time-barred. The Court rejected the application of articles 142 and 116, finding that the facts…

Source excerpt

• Limitation Periods
• Fraudulent Conveyance
• Declaration Of Ownership
• Possession Of Immovable Property