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
Nagadya v Namubiru (Civil Appeal 29 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 154 (21 March 2025)
The High Court held that Civil Suit No. 027 of 2017 was barred by res judicata and struck it out, setting aside the lower court judgment and costs orders.
Nabaseruka & Another v Luninze (Civil Appeal 46 of 2023) [2024] UGHCLD 47 (26 February 2024)
The High Court dismissed an appeal over a disputed kibanja, upheld a finding that the land belonged to Semugooma Luninze Francis’s estate, and confirmed trespass orders.
Acayo & 4 Ors Vs Lodik (CIVIL APPEAL No. 054 OF 2017) [2019] UGHCCD 179 (30 May 2019)
The High Court set aside a land judgment after finding the trial court wrongly failed to inspect the locus in quo, and ordered a retrial before a different magistrate.
Kalani v Kaur (Civil Appeal 22 of 1995) [1996] UGSC 25 (9 August 1996)
The Supreme Court of Uganda held that a lease had been surrendered before expulsion, so the property was not expropriated and the repossession certificate was cancelled.
Karyo v Wanjau and Another (Civil Case No. 87 of 1939) [1938] EACA 178 (1 January 1938)
The court held that res judicata applied to Native Tribunal decisions and barred a fresh suit over the same land dispute, even though the plaintiff was not a party earlier.
Stephen Kalani v Satwant Kaur [1996] UGSC 16 (9 August 1996)
The Supreme Court found that the respondent had surrendered her leasehold interest in the suit property prior to her expulsion from Uganda, as evidenced by the registration of the surrender and the correspondence from the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board certifying its genuineness. The surrender was effective inter parties from 7-7-72, and the subsequent registration, though delayed, did not invalidate the surrender. The respondent had no leasehold interest to declare to the Government, and the property reverted to the mailo owner. Consequently, the Expropriated Properties Act did not…
Source excerpt
