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
Atuhaire v Bainobwengye & Another (Civil Appeal 86 of 2020) [2024] UGHC 1192 (18 October 2024)
High Court appeal over matrimonial property, child maintenance, and compensation. The court ordered valuation and equal division of the Kagando property and dismissed the cross-appeal.
Sekindi v Kaumba (Civil Suit 267 of 2017) [2023] UGHCFD 79 (27 March 2023)
The High Court held that the Muyenga property was jointly owned and should be shared equally, while the Luwero land remained the plaintiff’s inheritance but its developments were shared.
George .W. Mirembe Kasujja v Jones West Sebunya and Anor (Civil Suit No. 208 of 2015) [2022] UGHCLD 217 (4 November 2022)
The High Court held that the transfer of jointly owned land to a company was unlawful, restored the plaintiff and his brother as joint owners, and awarded damages and costs.
W H and Another v N E (Divorce Appeal No. 1 of 2019) [2020] UGHCFD 10 (30 November 2020)
The High Court dismissed a divorce appeal over possession of a matrimonial home, upholding the finding that the property was joint matrimonial property and that the alleged sale was a sham.
Kayhul v Kayhul (Divorce Cause No. 123 of 2016) [2020] UGHCFD 7 (3 July 2020)
The High Court dissolved the marriage, found desertion, granted the petitioner custody of the children, ordered child maintenance, and divided matrimonial land equally.
Zakaria v Difasi & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 7 of 2018) [2018] UGSC 59 (15 October 2018)
The Supreme Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, holding that the land dispute raised no question of great public or general importance.
Birungi v Otim (Civil Suit No, 166 of 2014) [2015] UGHC 17 (1 December 2015)
Both parties are registered as joint proprietors of the suit property, and absent any evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, the law presumes equal ownership. The Defendant's arguments regarding sole financial contribution and the Plaintiff's prior marriage do not defeat the Plaintiff's entitlement, as fraud was neither pleaded nor proved. The court recognizes both monetary and non-monetary contributions in cohabitation scenarios, applying principles from matrimonial property cases. The Plaintiff and Defendant are thus entitled to equal shares in the suit property and the jointly acquired la…
Source excerpt
Birungi v Otim (Civil Suit 166 of 2014) [2015] UGHC 19 (1 December 2015)
Both parties are registered as joint proprietors of the suit property, and in the absence of any specifically pleaded and strictly proved fraud or misrepresentation, the law presumes equal ownership. The Plaintiff's entitlement to an equal share is supported by both statutory provisions and case law, which recognize non-monetary contributions in cohabitation relationships as sufficient for equal division of property. The Defendant's arguments regarding sole financial contribution and the Plaintiff's prior marriage do not override the conclusive evidence of joint registration and the absence o…
Source excerpt
Bakiza v Nafuna Bakiza (Divorce Cause No. 22 of 2011) [2015] UGHCFD 26 (20 August 2015)
The High Court held that the matrimonial home at Plot 5 Semawata Road, Ntinda belonged to the cross petitioner after he redeemed the mortgage and the respondent lost her claim through wrongdoing.
Hough v Hough (Divorce Cause 1 of 2006) [2010] UGHC 234 (25 February 2010)
Both parties acquired Ugandan domicile of choice, conferring jurisdiction on the High Court. The petitioner proved adultery and cruelty by the respondent, and the respondent proved cruelty by the petitioner, establishing irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The pre nuptial agreement was valid and binding, governing the distribution of property and excluding the respondent from beneficial interest in properties acquired by the petitioner before and during marriage, except for jointly owned assets where the presumption of equal shares was rebutted by evidence of sole contribution. Claims fo…
Source excerpt
