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
Emenyu Ocan Daniel v Fide Eryomu ( minor) (Civil Appeal No. 71 of 2005) [2020] UGCA 54 (27 February 2020)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a land-sale appeal, finding the vendor had no valid lease interest to sell and ordering refund of the part payment.
Nsubuga Vs Rwomushoro (Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2012) [2019] UGCA 38 (10 April 2019)
The Court of Appeal upheld a refund order after finding total failure of consideration in a land sale, and it also upheld interest and costs.
Kagoro v Samalien Properties Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 59 of 2010) [2013] UGHCLD 402 (7 May 2013)
The court held that the buyer was entitled to a refund of part payments after the seller failed to pass good title and sold the land to a third party.
Enos Johns v Allan Shem Kirumira (HCT-00-CV-CS-0057-2008) (HCT-00-CV-CS-0057-2008) [2009] UGHC 134 (12 October 2009)
The High Court held the defendant liable to refund UGX 100 million received for a failed land purchase, with court-rate interest and costs.
Juliet Nandecha v Edward Kayongo (Civil Suit No.187 of 2005) (Civil Suit No.187 of 2005) [2005] UGHC 51 (20 December 2005)
The High Court found the defendant breached a land sale agreement by failing to transfer title or give possession and ordering sale to third parties, awarding refund and damages.
Tarsis B Kabwegyere v Sheikh Adam Semugabe (HCT-00-CC-CS 662 of 2004) [2005] UGCommC 36 (30 June 2005)
The High Court of Uganda ordered the defendant to refund Ug. Shs.20,400,000 for motorcycles not delivered, with interest and costs.
Mohammed Abdallah v Juma Mubiru (CIVIL SUIT NO. 66/95) [1996] UGHCCD 4 (8 July 1996)
The High Court found the defendant breached a vehicle-import contract after receiving UGX 8,800,000 and failing to deliver the vehicle. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff.
Trench and Another v Edyvean (C.A. 1/1934.) [1937] EACA 94 (1 January 1937)
The Court of Appeal held that a farming partner lacked implied authority to bind co-partners to a borrowing agreement, and the respondent’s contract claim failed for want of consideration.
