Uganda Case Law

Rwebuzagure v Kabatsi & 4 Others

Rwebuzagure v Kabatsi & 4 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 52 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 122 (28 March 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause 52 of 2023

Judge

Wolayo, J

The court found that the applicant, as a tenant in common, is entitled to sever his share from the rest of the co-owners and obtain a separate title, provided that the interests of his mother and wife are protected in accordance with statutory provisions. The respondents' opposition based on alleged trust and family interests was not supported by any registered trust or overriding legal interest. The applicant's share, less the 20 acres redeemed by the first respondent, is to be partitioned and registered separately, with the remaining co-owners retaining their tenancy in common. The applican…

Source excerpt

• Partition Of Land
• Tenancy In Common
• Succession Rights
• Family Land Protection

Kagimu v Sansa & Another

Kagimu v Sansa & Another (Miscellaneous Application 146 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 320 (9 January 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 146 of 2022

Judge

Katamba Nkwanga, J

The High Court of Uganda at Masaka allowed an objector application, releasing attached property found to be the applicant’s matrimonial home and in her possession.

• Objector Proceedings
• Matrimonial Property
• Execution Of Judgment
• Possession And Interest
• Family Land Protection
• Objector-proceedings

Kiwanuka v Micro Finance Centre Limited and Another

Kiwanuka v Micro Finance Centre Limited and Another (Civil Appeal 159 of 2014) [2023] UGCA 355 (14 April 2023)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 159 of 2014

Judge

Bamugemereire, JA, Musota, JA, Kibeedi, JA

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant was legally married to the 2nd respondent and had locus standi to challenge the mortgage. The property in question was established as the matrimonial home, and the mortgage was executed without the appellant's spousal consent, in violation of Section 39 of the Land Act and relevant provisions of the Mortgage Act. The trial court's reliance on discretion under Section 36 of the Mortgage Act to avoid nullifying the mortgage was held to be a misdirection, as such discretion cannot override mandatory statutory requirements or sanction illegality. The a…

Source excerpt

• Matrimonial Home Mortgage
• Spousal Consent Requirement
• Mortgage Act Review
• Family Land Protection
• Burden Of Proof Affidavit
• Appellate Discretion