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
Mafabi Tom v Moses Musambwa (Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 478 (2 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed an appeal over ownership of land used by the respondent son, finding the appellant had gifted the land inter vivos.
Rwakarara Joseph v Nagayi Annet and Ben Brown (Civil Appeal No. 108 of 2017) [2025] UGCA 214 (26 June 2025)
The Court of Appeal held that the disputed land sale was valid because the wife had actually consented, and restored the appellant’s title, possession, and mesne profits.
Kyampaire Penninah v Turinawe Emmanuel and Nsimaruhanga Hannington (Civil Appeal 37 of 2019) [2025] UGHC 356 (10 April 2025)
The High Court upheld findings that the appellant failed to prove joint ownership or marriage, but set aside costs against her in the interest of equity.
Lubega v Nyanzi and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No.86 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 167 (5 March 2025)
The High Court held that the suit kibanja was family land, but the applicant did not need consent from the respondents to transact because none was a spouse.
Kaddu and Another v Kazibwe and 2 Others (Civil Suit 648 of 2020) [2025] UGHCLD 31 (6 February 2025)
The court found that the 1st defendant's family had occupied the suit land as their family home since 1992, with uninterrupted possession and recognition by local authorities. The evidence showed that the family was not compensated for their interest, and their occupation predated the plaintiffs' acquisition of title. The law protects lawful and bona fide occupants, including family land, and prohibits transactions without spousal consent. The plaintiffs failed to conduct adequate due diligence and did not compensate all occupants. The change in proprietorship did not extinguish the existing…
Source excerpt
Kaheeru v Kabazarwe (Civil Appeal 30 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 980 (18 October 2024)
The High Court found that the suit land did not constitute matrimonial property or family land as defined by Ugandan law. The evidence established that the appellant neither resided on nor contributed to the acquisition or development of the property, and there was no joint intention to treat it as a family home. The respondent lawfully acquired the suit land through a valid chain of title, with no evidence of fraud or illegality in the transactions. The trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence and applied the correct legal principles, and the appellant failed to prove any of the grou…
Source excerpt
Kobusingye v Muzito & Another (Miscellaneous Application 81 of 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 91 (5 April 2024)
The High Court set aside a consent order over disputed family land, finding the underlying transaction void for lack of the applicant's spousal consent.
Amuyeru v Seruwagi & Another (Miscellaneous Application 53 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 271 (4 April 2024)
The court found that the orders sought by the applicant—vacating the caveat and effecting transfer of the suit land—are final and consequential in nature and can only be properly sought under section 177 of the Registration of Titles Act, not by notice of motion. The court agreed with the respondents that the dispute involves complex questions of law and fact, particularly regarding the validity of the sale in the absence of spousal consent and whether the transaction was a sale or a credit facility. The court also found that the sale of family land without spousal consent is void, and that t…
Source excerpt
Tumusiime v Mubangizi & Another (Criminal Appeal 25 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 153 (27 March 2024)
The court found that the suit land was not family land within the meaning of the Land Act. The evidence established that the land exchanged with Katabazi, which became the suit property, was comprised of land acquired by the 1st respondent before his marriage to the appellant and was his personal property. The property distribution agreement (DEX1), signed by both parties upon their separation, specifically allocated the suit land to the 1st respondent and was intended to be legally binding, given the context of their separation. The appellant's claim that she was forced to sign the agreement…
Source excerpt
Lunkuse v Tamale and Another (Civil Suit 480 of 2012) [2023] UGHCLD 369 (31 October 2023)
The High Court dismissed a challenge to a mortgage over family land, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove she was the spouse whose consent was required.
