Uganda Case Law

Bamwine v Bamwine and Another (HCT-00-LD-CA 62 of 2022)

Bamwine v Bamwine and Another (HCT-00-LD-CA 62 of 2022) [2024] UGHCLD 277 (9 December 2024)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

HCT-00-LD-CA 62 of 2022

Judge

Alividza, J

The High Court found that the trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to recognize the suit property as matrimonial property. The evidence established that the property was acquired during the marriage, was intended and used as the family home, and that the Appellant had both a direct and indirect contribution to its acquisition and maintenance. The absence of documentary evidence of contribution did not negate the Appellant's rights, as oral evidence and her role as a witness to the purchase sufficed. The Court held that, under Section 38A and 39(1) of the Land Act, the sale of fam…

Source excerpt

• Matrimonial Property
• Family Land Consent
• Sale Of Property Without Consent
• Ordinary Residence
• Appellate Review
• Costs Orders

Pride Micro-Finance Limited v Musana (HCT-01-CV-CS 2 of 2021)

Pride Micro-Finance Limited v Musana (HCT-01-CV-CS 2 of 2021) [2024] UGHC 761 (20 August 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-01-CV-CS 2 of 2021

Judge

Wagona, J

The High Court held that the borrower defaulted on a secured loan, the lender complied with statutory notice requirements, and awarded the lender the outstanding sum, general damages, and costs.

• Mortgage Enforcement
• Loan Default
• Breach Of Contract
• Family Land Consent
• Mortgage-enforcement
• Loan-default

Rujura v Nayebare Kyamuzigita

Rujura v Nayebare Kyamuzigita (Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2013) [2021] UGCA 170 (8 December 2021)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2013

Judge

Madrama, JA, Musota, JA, Barishaki, JA

The Court of Appeal of Uganda dismissed an appeal over a land sale dispute, holding that the sale agreement complied with the Illiterates Protection Act and that section 39 consent was satisfied.

• Sale Of Land
• Illiterates Protection Act Compliance
• Family Land Consent
• Registration Of Titles
• Fraud In Land Transactions
• Land-sale

Raymond Otucu & anoer v Otwii Tom & 48 oers (HCT (HCT)

Raymond Otucu & anoer v Otwii Tom & 48 oers (HCT (HCT) [2008] UGHC 130 (27 June 2008)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT

The High Court found that the trial magistrate erred by considering matters requiring evidence at the preliminary stage, rather than confining herself to the averments in the plaint. The plaint, despite being poorly drafted, alleged that the plaintiffs were owners of the land and that the defendants were in wrongful occupation, which satisfied the test for disclosing a cause of action. The court further held that trespass is a continuing tort, so the claim was not time-barred. Issues of relationship and consent regarding family land required evidence and could not be resolved at the prelimina…

Source excerpt

• Customary Land Ownership
• Locus Standi
• Limitation Periods
• Trespass To Land
• Family Land Consent

Florah Rwamarungu v DCFU Leasing Co. Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 436 of 2007)

Florah Rwamarungu v DCFU Leasing Co. Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 436 of 2007) [2007] UGCommC 75 (19 September 2007)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-00-CC-MA 436 of 2007

The High Court dismissed an application for temporary injunction over alleged family land, finding no irreparable loss and noting the challenged sale had already occurred.

• Temporary Injunction
• Family Land Consent
• Irreparable Loss
• Mortgage Variation
• Status Quo
• Matrimonial Home

Muwanga Estates & Anor v NPART

Muwanga Estates & Anor v NPART (Civil Appeal No. 13/2003) [2005] UGCA 6 (16 September 2005)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 13/2003

The appellate court found that there was no evidence of joint purchase of the kibanja by the respondent and her husband, and distinguished between having a right in land and having an interest in land. The latter is associated with ownership and is capable of being registered, while the former relates to use. The respondent's planting of crops did not create a legal interest in the land under the law applicable at the time (Land Reform Decree). The appellant made necessary inquiries and was introduced as the new owner by local council officials. The court held that the respondent, having sepa…

Source excerpt

• Customary Land Tenure
• Matrimonial Home Rights
• Bonafide Purchaser
• Security Of Occupancy
• Joint Ownership
• Family Land Consent