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
Nabwiire Jane v Nanteza Irene (Civil Appeal No. 133 of 2022) [2025] UGCA 237 (18 July 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a second appeal over disputed land possession, holding that an unadmitted kibanja sale agreement could not be relied on and that factual grounds were not open on second appeal.
Olum v Eselu and Another (Civil Appeal 3 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 798 (28 August 2024)
The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish ownership of the suit land. He did not produce the original purchase agreement or credible evidence of boundaries, and his witnesses were inconsistent and unable to identify the land in dispute. The respondents, on the other hand, presented convincing evidence of inheritance, boundaries, and documentary proof, including clan minutes and letters of administration. The court found that the suit land was not the same as the land purchased by the appellant from Bisekere, but rather formed part of the respondents' inherite…
Source excerpt
Nabbagala and 3 Others v Watoto Child Care Ministries (Labour Dispute Reference 85 of 2022) [2024] UGIC 28 (5 June 2024)
The Industrial Court admitted a late supplementary bundle in a labour dispute, holding that strict civil evidence rules do not bind the court.
Kaahwa v Nyakato (Civil Appeal 29 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 47 (1 February 2024)
The High Court dismissed an appeal over ownership and trespass to land, holding that the respondent proved purchase and the appellant produced no valid documentary proof.
Maria's Care v Kibono (Civil Suit 12 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 294 (7 July 2023)
The court found that the Defendant's objection to the admissibility of the Plaintiff's Court Order, Special Powers of Attorney, Certificate of Registration, and Special Resolution was without merit. The documents were requested by the Defendant during cross-examination, produced in their original form, and qualified as public documents under the Evidence Act. Their admission did not introduce new matters or cause prejudice to the Defendant. The court held that procedural irregularities in the manner the documents were solicited did not override the substantive rules of evidence, and no miscar…
Source excerpt
Kalyabe v Amiti and 2 Others (HCCS 164 of 2016) [2023] UGHCLD 304 (19 June 2023)
The court found that the 1st Defendant was neither the author, addressee, nor a witness to any of the contested documents and had not satisfied the requirement of being the primary source for the facts depicted in those documents. The court emphasized that documentary evidence must be authenticated by a competent witness, preferably the author, addressee, or someone present at execution. Since the 1st Defendant did not meet these criteria, he was not competent to tender the documents. The court noted that Mr. Ngobi Denis, to whom the documents were issued, would be a more appropriate witness,…
Source excerpt
Baliruno v Central Broadcasting Services (CBS) (Labour Dispute Reference 92 of 2020) [2023] UGIC 102 (24 May 2023)
The Industrial Court, by virtue of Section 18 of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act, is not bound by the strict rules of evidence that apply to civil proceedings. The Court adopts a less formal and more equitable approach to the admissibility of evidence in labour disputes, allowing documents to be admitted at the preliminary stage, with their authenticity, credibility, and probative value to be tested during cross-examination and subsequent evaluation. The admission of documents does not confirm their legality or authenticity, which remains subject to proof. The preliminary…
Source excerpt
Kisembo and 3 Others v Tibezinda and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 250 of 2016) [2022] UGCA 294 (21 December 2022)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a land ownership appeal, holding that the appellants’ evidence was contradictory and insufficient to prove title to the suit land.
Eleu v Eriono (Revision Application No. 2 of 2022) [2022] UGHC 104 (26 October 2022)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate did not err in dismissing the suit, as the applicant failed to produce the original or a certified copy of the agreement, and no sufficient reason was given for this failure. The absence of primary or admissible secondary evidence meant the applicant did not prove his case as required by law. The respondent's defense did not amount to an unequivocal admission of the claim, and the disagreement between the parties regarding the size of the land further undermined the applicant's position. However, the High Court held that the award of costs agains…
Source excerpt
Elelu v Eriono (REVISION APPLICATION HCT-12-CV-CR 2 of 2022) [2022] UGHC 84 (26 October 2022)
The High Court upheld dismissal of a land-exchange suit for failure to produce the original or certified agreement, but set aside costs awarded in ex parte proceedings.
