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
Rehema Turyakira Omar v Administrator of the Estate of the Late Byoleko Epaphroditus and Others (Civil Suit No. 883 of 2016) [2025] UGHCLD 53 (6 May 2025)
The High Court ordered creation of an access road for a landlocked plot, awarded damages, and declined a permanent injunction.
Mutezi v Aganya (Originating Summons 6 of 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 231 (30 September 2024)
The High Court held that an originating summons was an unsuitable procedure for a disputed easement and access-road claim, and dismissed the suit.
Marihera v Mwesigwa and 3 Others (Civil Appeal 52 of 2017) [2024] UGHCLD 201 (31 July 2024)
The High Court upheld a finding that an access road existed on the suit land, rejected the appellant’s challenge, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Matser v Jingo and Another (Civil Appeal 65 of 2020) [2024] UGHCLD 187 (11 July 2024)
The High Court found that the trial Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for leave to construct an access road after the commencement of the Roads Act, 2019, which repealed the Access to Roads Act and vested such jurisdiction in the Minister responsible for roads. All proceedings, decisions, and orders made by the Magistrate after September 25, 2019, are a nullity and void ab initio. Even if jurisdiction had existed, the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the existence of an access road through the respondents' land and did not demonstrate that…
Source excerpt
Kwebeiha v Babirye and 4 Others (Civil Suit 216 of 2017) [2024] UGHCLD 110 (26 April 2024)
The court found that although the access road in question was not planned or gazetted, it existed and was used by the defendants prior to the dispute. The plaintiff himself created the current access road after blocking the original one, and both parties have used it to access their respective properties. The evidence did not establish that the access road was officially gazetted, but the necessity for access to the defendants' plots justified the continued use of the road. Applying the doctrine of way of necessity and the principle of implied easement, the court held that the defendants are…
Source excerpt
Kirikaija and Another v Rwakijuma (HCT-01-LD-CA 4 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 392 (8 April 2024)
The appellate court found that the respondent failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the existence of a long-standing easement over the appellants' land. The evidence did not establish uninterrupted use or a defined right of way, and the purchase agreement did not mention any access. Testimony from previous landowners contradicted the respondent's claim. Regarding trespass, the evidence suggested mutual grazing practices rather than actionable trespass, and the respondent did not demonstrate exclusive possession or unauthorized entry sufficient to sustain the claim. The award of ge…
Source excerpt
Kalanzi Katabazi and 2 Others v Kadoma and Another [2023] UGSC 31 (12 September 2023)
The Supreme Court held that the appellants did not plead the existence of a footpath as an easement in their written statement of defence or counterclaim. The case before the lower courts was founded on the existence of an access road under the Access to Roads Act, not on a common law easement. The procedure for creating an access road under the Act was not followed, rendering any such road unlawful. The attempt to raise the issue of a footpath as an easement for the first time on second appeal was impermissible, as it was not supported by the pleadings and would deprive the respondents of a…
Source excerpt
Mulondo v Namara and Another (Civil Suit 184 of 2017) [2023] UGHCLD 271 (23 August 2023)
The High Court held that the defendants unlawfully blocked the plaintiff’s access road and trespassed by encroaching on his land, awarding damages, injunction, and demolition orders.
Musoke v Agard and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 341 of 2020) [2021] UGCA 52 (22 July 2021)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and a related stay application, holding that the issues were not of general public importance.
Kalanzi Katabazi & 2 Ors v Kadoma & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2018) [2020] UGCA 89 (24 July 2020)
The Court of Appeal held that a footpath on the suit land was not a legal easement, upheld trespass findings, and reduced general damages from UGX 50 million to UGX 20 million.
