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
Davanti Union Limited v Kipoi-Nsubuga & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 193 of 2019) [2020] UGHCLD 7 (13 March 2020)
The High Court struck out an application for consequential orders, holding that issues of execution and vacant possession belonged before the executing court.
Opedo & 16 Ors Vs Kiconco (Civil Revision No.33 of 2018) [2018] UGHCLD 63 (14 December 2018)
The High Court set aside a Chief Magistrate’s judgment and execution for lack of jurisdiction and defective service in a land trespass dispute.
Nankumba & Anor v Nagadya & Ors (Execution Miscellaneous Application- No. 991 of 2012) [2013] UGHCCD 8 (21 January 2013)
The court found that the objectors/applicants were in possession of the disputed land in their own right, having purchased bibanja and constructed houses independently of the judgment debtor, Isaac Ssekandi. The structures subject to removal under the previous court order were those erected by Ssekandi, not the objectors. The scope of the present proceedings is limited to determining possession, not title, and the objectors are entitled to defend their rights pending further investigation. Accordingly, the application to stay demolition of the objectors' houses was granted, with costs awarded…
Source excerpt
Nairobi Municipal Council v Din and Another (Criminal Revision Case No. 61 of 1950) [1950] EACA 111 (1 January 1950)
The court held that while any person may draw the court's attention to an illegal or ultra vires order, the tenants in this case were not parties to the original proceedings and were merely served with the Magistrate's order as required by statute. The application did not attack the legality or reasonableness of the Magistrate's order, which was found to be reasonable and in line with precedent. The court expressed doubt as to whether tenants had locus standi to seek revision but did not decide the point, instead holding that even if jurisdiction existed, there was no basis to interfere with…
Source excerpt
Bharmal Limited v Ramji and Another (Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1956) [1950] EACA 168 (1 January 1950)
The Court held that in proceedings for demolition of premises found to be a nuisance under section 68(1) of the Public Health Ordinance, the owner sufficiently represents all occupiers, including tenants, and there is no requirement for the tenant to be served or heard prior to the making of the demolition order. The Court found no conflict between the Public Health Ordinance and the Rent Restriction Ordinance; the former deals with public health and safety, while the latter regulates landlord-tenant relations. The rights of statutory tenants under the Rent Restriction Ordinance are enforceab…
Source excerpt
Rex v Waweru (Criminal Appeal No. 489 of 1948) [1948] EACA 85 (1 January 1948)
The court held that a Third Class Magistrate could not order demolition under the Townships General Rules, so disobedience of that order was not an offence under Penal Code section 126.
Rex v Muini (Cr. Rev. Case No. 21 of 1938) [1938] EACA 190 (1 January 1938)
The court held that a medical officer could not order demolition of dwellings under section 119; section 124 required court procedure. The butcher’s shop conviction stood.
