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
Sari Consulting Limited v Francis Magambe Byaruhanga (Civil Suit No. 543 of 2020) [2025] UGCommC 180 (15 April 2025)
The High Court held that a share-sale contract was valid and that COVID-19 disruption to a related subcontract did not frustrate the payment obligation. The Defendant was found in breach.
Zzimwe Enterprises ,Hardwares and Constructions Limited v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 116 of 2019) [2024] UGCA 238 (30 August 2024)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal over a road contract dispute, finding no proved force majeure and upholding retention of equipment under the contract.
Roko Construction Uganda Limited v Mantrac Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2438 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 126 (6 May 2024)
The High Court granted Roko Construction unconditional leave to defend a summary debt claim, finding a bona fide triable issue over the amount owed.
Sanitation Africa Limited v Lutheran World Federation (Civil Suit 745 of 2021) [2024] UGCommC 278 (25 March 2024)
The contract between the parties became operational only upon submission of the Performance Guarantee on 15th March 2021. Subsequent delays and ultimate cancellation were caused by third-party refusal to hand over the project site, a circumstance beyond the control of both parties and known to the plaintiff. The defendant repeatedly communicated the situation and instructed the plaintiff to halt further undertakings. The plaintiff nonetheless incurred expenses before the contract became effective and contrary to express instructions. The court found that the contract was frustrated by circums…
Source excerpt
Partizanski and Anor v Sobetra (U) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 1740 of 2000) [2007] UGCommC 73 (12 September 2007)
The court found that the lease agreement was extended beyond 31st March 2000 but was terminated by the plaintiffs on 20th June 2000, when they demanded the return of the machinery. The defendant failed to return the equipment within a reasonable time and did not provide sufficient evidence to establish force majeure or act of God as a valid excuse for the delay. The court held that the agreed hire charges for the Cat D7 and 950 Loader during the extension were payable only upon actual utilization, but the defendant failed to maintain or submit utilization records, justifying the plaintiffs' i…
Source excerpt
