Uganda
Sign in
Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Commercial And Corporate [2024] UGSC 6

CTM Uganda Limited & 2 Others v Alimuss Properties Uganda Limited & 3 Others

CTM Uganda Limited & 2 Others v Alimuss Properties Uganda Limited & 3 Others [2024] UGSC 6 (29 January 2024)

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging a consent judgment and company name change, holding that the consent remained valid despite flaws in the name-change process.

  • Company Name Change
  • Consent Judgment
  • Shareholder Resolution
  • Director Authority
  • Indoor Management Rule
  • Statutory Compliance
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [2021] UGCA 201

Necta (U) Limited and Another v Crane Bank Limited

Necta (U) Limited and Another v Crane Bank Limited (Civil Appeal 219 of 2013) [2021] UGCA 201 (8 June 2021)

The Court of Appeal found that the special resolution authorizing the mortgage was invalid, as it was not signed by all directors as required by the company's articles and Regulation 106 of Table A. The mortgage and further charges were defective for lack of proper execution, absence of company seal, and signatures not in Latin character, contrary to the Registration of Titles Act and company articles. The sale of the property was therefore invalid, as it was based on defective security. Notice requirements for demand and sale were not met, as public advertisements did not constitute personal…

  • Company Resolutions
  • Mortgage Execution
  • Director Authority
  • Invalid Security
  • Notice Requirements
  • Damages For Wrongful Sale
Read case analysis
Land And Property [1986] UGSC 18

United Assurance Company Limited v Attorney General

United Assurance Company Limited v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 1 of 1986) [1986] UGSC 18 (6 October 1986)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in finding that the suit was unmaintainable and that a board or shareholder resolution was required for the company to institute proceedings. The appellant company, being a private company, could be managed by a sole director under section 177 of the Companies Act and regulation 80 of Table A, who had authority to instruct counsel. The property in question belonged to the company, not to the individual shareholders, and the mere vesting of shares in the Custodian Board did not transfer the company's assets to the Government. The question of…

  • Compulsory Acquisition
  • Company Management
  • Expropriated Properties
  • Constitutional Interpretation
  • Director Authority
  • Shareholder Rights
Read case analysis

About this JurisAssist collection

Uganda decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.