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.
Tom Walusimbi v Andrew Kisawuzi (Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2013) [2025] UGCA 225 (11 July 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a challenge to title over a motor vehicle, holding the sale was not in market overt and the seller could not pass good title.
Senyonga v Tumuhiirwe and 4 Others (Civil Appeal 18 of 2018) [2025] UGCA 103 (14 April 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a second appeal in a family land dispute, upheld findings that the land formed part of the estate, and rejected a limitation defence.
Sebukayire & Another v Lutwama & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 180 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 152 (2 April 2025)
The High Court of Uganda at Kiboga dismissed an application to strike out a land suit, holding the plaint disclosed a cause of action and that temporary injunction consent did not create estoppel.
Karekaho Byanyima Vennie v Sekanji Umar and Others (Civil Appeal 1 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 306 (20 March 2025)
The appellate court found that the appellant lawfully purchased the suit land in 2009, compensated any bibanja holders, and took possession. The first and second respondents (Sekanji and Asiimwe) had agreed with the vendor, Batte Sulaiman, to vacate their interests on Plot 23 in exchange for titles on Plot 25, and thus were estopped from claiming occupancy on the suit land. Their remedy lay against Batte's estate, not the appellant. The fifth respondent (Muyambi) purported to purchase a kibanja from Kasongovu after the appellant had acquired the land, but this sale was void and Kasongovu had…
Source excerpt
Shurik Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Tax Application 184 of 2023) [2025] UGTAT 2 (28 February 2025)
The Tribunal upheld URA’s reclassification of cough drops and a skin cream, finding the products were not medicaments for customs purposes.
Namubiru v Launde (Civil Suit 2160 of 2016) [2025] UGHCLD 33 (24 February 2025)
Both certificates of title, Kyadondo Block 267 Plot 634 (Plaintiff) and Kyadondo Block 269 Plot 192 (Defendant), are valid and distinct. The Plaintiff's title was lawfully acquired and processed, with no evidence of fraud presented by the Defendant. No easement or right of access for the Defendant is registered on the Plaintiff's title, and the Defendant failed to prove entitlement to such. The Defendant unlawfully trespassed upon the Plaintiff's land by encroaching, destroying property, and depriving her of possession and rental income. The Plaintiff did not acquiesce in the Defendant's cons…
Source excerpt
Musoke v Sserwadda & 2 Others (Civil Appeal 10 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 58 (29 January 2025)
The appellate court found that there was sufficient evidence of a valid contract for the sale of the suit land between the appellant and the 1st respondent, with part payment made and a balance outstanding. The 1st respondent breached the contract by failing to pay the balance of the purchase price. Despite the appellant's denial, the evidence from witnesses and the conduct of the parties established the existence of the agreement. The 2nd and 3rd respondents, having purchased the land from the 1st respondent, acquired good title as equitable ownership had passed to the 1st respondent upon ex…
Source excerpt
Ahamed Yawe and Another v Kayemba Joseph and Others (Civil Appeal 25 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 1274 (11 December 2024)
The court found that the sale of the suit land to the respondents under their association FREFA was lawful, as it was conducted with the participation and consent of the beneficiaries and the administrator of the estate at the time. The evidence showed that the estate of the late Mukasa Yosefu had been distributed by consensus among the beneficiaries, including the appellants, who received their share. The court rejected the appellants' claim that they had purchased the shares of Namukwaya and Nakyoni, finding no credible evidence of such transactions. The court further held that the responde…
Source excerpt
Mulindwa v Abdul & 3 Others (HCT-01-CV-LD 17 of 2015) [2024] UGHC 932 (30 September 2024)
The High Court held that the disputed Njara land belonged to the 4th defendant, dismissed the plaintiff’s claim, and granted a permanent injunction.
