Uganda Case Law

Musinguzi & Another v Mwamba & 2 Others (HCT-01-CV-CS 41 of 2021)

Musinguzi & Another v Mwamba & 2 Others (HCT-01-CV-CS 41 of 2021) [2024] UGHC 938 (30 September 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-01-CV-CS 41 of 2021

Judge

Mugabo, J

The High Court upheld the will of the late Clovis Rwahoima, rejected claims of forgery and intermeddling, and dismissed the suit with costs.

• Wills And Testamentary Dispositions
• Probate And Letters Of Administration
• Intermeddling With Estate
• Doctrine Of Approbation And Reprobation
• Wills-and-testamentary-dispositions
• Probate-and-letters-of-probate

Nina v Ssewagudde

Nina v Ssewagudde (Civil Suit 2316 of 2016) [2022] UGHCLD 315 (10 November 2022)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit 2316 of 2016

Judge

Kawesa, J

The court found that the Defendant initially entered the suit land under a valid tenancy agreement with the late Mary Wango, which expired in 2011. After expiry, the Defendant remained in possession as a tenant at sufferance, not as a trespasser, since there was no evidence of adverse acts against the title of the rightful owner. The 2013 tenancy agreement, though executed by Juliet Galiwango without formal letters of administration, was treated as valid and binding because the Plaintiff accepted and benefited from rental payments under it. The doctrine of approbation and reprobation preclude…

Source excerpt

• Trespass To Land
• Tenancy Agreements
• Succession And Estates
• Doctrine Of Approbation And Reprobation

Grace Wango v Jane Ssewagudde (Trading as Kazo Summit Primary School)

Grace Wango v Jane Ssewagudde (Trading as Kazo Summit Primary School) (Civil Suit 2316 of 2016) [2022] UGHCLD 314 (10 November 2022)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit 2316 of 2016

Judge

Kawesa, J

The Defendant was not a trespasser on the suit land. Although the original tenancy agreement expired, the Defendant's continued occupation did not amount to trespass, as there was no evidence of adverse acts against the title of the rightful owner. The Plaintiff, having received rental payments under the 2013 agreement, is estopped from challenging its validity and cannot claim the Defendant's occupation was unlawful. The tenancy agreement of 5th March 2013 is valid and binding, and there was no breach proven. The Plaintiff failed to establish trespass or breach on the balance of probabilitie…

Source excerpt

• Trespass To Land
• Tenancy Agreements
• Doctrine Of Approbation And Reprobation
• Burden Of Proof
• Statutory Tenancy
• Remedies In Land Disputes