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
Nalubega Shadia v Hamiduh Seremba and Others (Civil Suit No. 1060 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 268 (12 May 2025)
The High Court of Uganda dismissed a land suit for want of prosecution after the plaintiff took no steps after filing, including failing to issue summons to defend.
Ssajabbi v Nabatanzi (Miscellaneous Cause 1 of 2020) [2022] UGHCFD 35 (1 April 2022)
The court enforced a deceased man's will, ordering the widow to vacate the first kibanja and move with her children to the second kibanja.
Sebuliba and Others v Visa Investments Ltd and Another (Civil Application 193 of 2020) [2021] UGCA 216 (21 October 2021)
Court of Appeal awarded costs of a withdrawn stay application in the cause, to abide the outcome of the pending appeal, after finding the applicants had acted diligently.
Kauda & Another v Mugerwa (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2018) [2020] UGHC 61 (6 July 2020)
The High Court dismissed an appeal by adult children against an eviction order, holding they were licensees on their father’s property, not lawful occupiers.
Turinawe & 4 Others v Turinawe & Another (Civil Appeal 10 of 2018) [2018] UGSC 69 (21 November 2018)
The Supreme Court held that the suit property did not become family property merely because the first respondent was registered as proprietor. The family resided in the property as tenants and did not derive sustenance from it within the meaning of Section 39 of the Land Act. The first respondent lacked the financial capacity to purchase the property and sold the offer to Elizabeth Kabutiti, who paid the full purchase price, thereby acquiring equitable interest. The registration in the first respondent's name was a procedural step to facilitate transfer to the actual purchaser. The appellants…
Source excerpt
Erizafani Wekikye v Bamuwayira & 3 ors (HC.CIVIL. APPEAL NO. 21/93) [1994] UGHCCD 1 (5 April 1994)
The court held that the Limitation Act does not bar the appellant's claim because the alleged trespass is continuous and time runs as long as the respondents remain on the land. However, the appellant failed to prove by evidence that there is a customary law making the burial ground family property. Even if such custom existed, both appellant and respondents are members of the same extended family and would all be beneficiaries, negating the appellant's exclusive claim. The trial magistrate's findings that it would be inequitable to evict the respondents, who have lived on and developed the l…
Source excerpt
