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
Bachubhai Karsandas Thobani v Mugume and 2 Others (Civil Suit 615 of 2017) [2025] UGHCLD 41 (28 February 2025)
The High Court held that the plaintiff’s lease remained protected by expropriation-related rules, so the land was not available for reallocation and the 1st defendant’s title was cancelled.
Ngobi & 133 Others v Steel Corporation of East Africa Limited (Civil Appeal 218 of 2019) [2025] UGCA 24 (24 January 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that the appellants' plaint disclosed a cause of action against the respondent by alleging that liability for their outstanding terminal benefits was transferred from EASCO to the respondent upon repossession of the Masese steel plant. However, the court held that, in the absence of express statutory language in the Expropriated Properties Act or a specific agreement assigning liabilities, there was no legal basis to hold the respondent liable for EASCO's debts. The court distinguished the precedent in Francis Mugarura, noting factual differences and the lack of evid…
Source excerpt
Atukwasa v Commissioner Land Registration (Misc Cause 346 of 2023) [2024] UGHCLD 16 (12 January 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application for a vesting order over land, finding the property was expropriated and subject to the Custodian Board’s management.
Gomba Motors (Isuzu Sales) Limited & Another v Attorney General (Civil Suit 998 of 2020; Civil Suit 999 of 2020) [2023] UGHCLD 444 (29 November 2023)
The High Court held that the plaintiffs’ compensation claim under the Expropriated Properties Act was not time barred and allowed the suit to proceed.
Sagoo Harbhan Singh and Another v Mugisha and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2306 of 2021) [2022] UGHCLD 163 (2 September 2022)
The applicants demonstrated that the orders sought in Civil Suit No. 461 of 2017 would legally affect their interests as alleged registered proprietors of the suit property. Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules permits joinder of parties at any stage of proceedings, including after hearing but before judgment. The court found that the applicants' presence is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate all questions involved and to avoid multiplicity of suits. The arguments that the suit was time barred and that the court was functus officio were rejected. The court held that…
Source excerpt
Ladha Limited v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 64 of 2019) [2022] UGHCLD 35 (15 February 2022)
The High Court held that the plaintiff remained the lawful owner of the land, found the later sale and transfer fraudulent and void, and awarded damages and costs.
The Registered Trustees of the Hindu Union v Kagoro & 2 Others (Civil Application 46 of 2021) [2022] UGSC 32 (14 January 2022)
The Supreme Court struck out an application to extend time to file and validate an out-of-time appeal, finding no sufficient reason for delay after lockdowns ended.
Administrator of the Estate of the late Habib Rhemu and 2 Others v Kiyingi and 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 575 of 2002) [2021] UGHCLD 181 (7 December 2021)
The High Court found that the sale memorandum supporting the counterclaimant’s title was forged, dismissed both sides’ claims, and declared the land abandoned Asian property.
West Nile Teachers Savings & Credit Coperative Society v Tabu (Civil Suit No. 0001 of 2011) [2016] UGHCLD 34 (3 November 2016)
The court held that the plaintiff’s leasehold title had expired, the acquisition was tainted by fraud, and neither party proved a lawful claim.
Edward Waligo v Departed Asians Properties Custodian Board & Ors (Civil Suit No.30 of 2006) (Civil Suit No.30 of 2006) [2009] UGHC 1 (8 February 2009)
The court held that the plaintiff's suit, to the extent it challenged the Minister's decision to repossess the property, was time-barred under Section 15(1) of the Expropriated Properties Act, as it was filed more than 30 days after communication of the decision. The sale agreement between the plaintiff and the government made time of the essence and required full payment of the purchase price within 60 days for property to pass. The plaintiff failed to pay the balance within the stipulated period, and despite extensions, did not fulfill his obligations. The government was entitled to cancel…
Source excerpt
