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: 18 Sep 2026, 04:59 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

21 Feb 2023

Land And Property [2023] UGHC 353

Oneka & 5505 Others v Attorney General

Oneka & 5505 Others v Attorney General (Civil Suit 27 of 2016) [2023] UGHC 353 (21 February 2023)

Court: High Court of Uganda
Case number: Civil Suit 27 of 2016
Judge: Ajiji, J

The plaintiffs established a cause of action against the defendant by proving their rights to property and a clean environment were violated through the forced creation of IDP camps on their land by agents of the defendant acting in the course of employment. The defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of its agents, which resulted in environmental degradation, destruction of property, and loss of livelihood. The court found the plaintiffs entitled to compensation for deprivation of land and environment, general damages for suffering and inconvenience, exemplary damages for oppressive…

Source excerpt

Vicarious Liability
Polluter Pays Principle
Compensation For Land Deprivation
Environmental Degradation
General Damages
Injunctive Relief

Read case analysis

24 Nov 2010

Public International Law [2010] ACHPR 109

Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) v Nigeria (Communication 338 of 2007)

Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) v Nigeria (Communication 338 of 2007) [2010] ACHPR 109 (24 November 2010)

Court: African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
Case number: Communication 338 of 2007

The African Commission found that the complainant failed to exhaust local remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the African Charter. While the complainant made general assertions regarding the unavailability and ineffectiveness of domestic remedies, it did not provide concrete evidence or demonstrate attempts to utilize available legal avenues, such as those provided under Section 11(5) of the Oil Pipelines Act. The Commission emphasized that mere doubts or apprehensions about the effectiveness of domestic remedies are insufficient; the complainant must at least attempt to pursue them unle…