Uganda Case Law

Rwabigongi and Another v Kyomugisha (HCT-05-CV-CS 14 of 2020)

Rwabigongi and Another v Kyomugisha (HCT-05-CV-CS 14 of 2020) [2025] UGHC 66 (20 February 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-05-CV-CS 14 of 2020

Judge

Allan Nshimye, J

The court found that the suit was not time barred, as it was filed within three years of the registration of the suit land in the name of Tayebwa Stephen. On the substantive issues, the court determined that Tayebwa Stephen committed fraud by omitting to disclose the 1st plaintiff's occupation and interest in the land when applying for freehold title, thereby misleading the Area Land Committee and defeating the 1st plaintiff's unregistered interest. The evidence established that the 1st plaintiff, Teera Violet Rwabigongi, purchased part of the land from Mwesigye Kosiya in 1985, when Tayebwa S…

Source excerpt

• Land Ownership Disputes
• Fraud In Land Registration
• Customary To Freehold Conversion
• Family Land Distribution

Kiwalabye and 4 Others v Magoba and Another

Kiwalabye and 4 Others v Magoba and Another (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2018) [2021] UGHCCD 232 (24 May 2021)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2018

Judge

Katamba Nkwanga, J

The High Court upheld a decision finding that a kibanja had been bequeathed to the first respondent, validating his sale to the second respondent and dismissing the appeal.

• Succession Disputes
• Will Interpretation
• Family Land Distribution
• Trespass To Land
• Will-interpretation
• Succession-disputes

Rweyora v Kyomukama (HCT – 01 – LD – CA – 0035 OF 2015)

Rweyora v Kyomukama (HCT – 01 – LD – CA – 0035 OF 2015) [2017] UGHCLD 230 (20 September 2017)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

HCT – 01 – LD – CA – 0035 OF 2015

Judge

Ojok, J

The High Court found that the trial Magistrate erred in evaluating the evidence and in ordering equal division of the suit land. The appellate court determined that the Respondent's evidence was inconsistent and unreliable, while the Appellant provided documentary proof (agreement DE1) that was not disputed by the Respondent. The court held that the Respondent was only entitled to ¼ acre of land as per the family division, and the remainder of the suit land belonged to the Appellant. The trial Magistrate's decision was set aside, and the appeal was allowed on all grounds. The Respondent is re…

Source excerpt

• Ownership Of Land
• Family Land Distribution
• Evidence Evaluation
• Agreements And Consents