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
Ochieng and 3 Others v Attorney General and Another (Civil Suit 934 of 2004) [2021] UGHCLD 483 (13 December 2021)
The High Court held that the suit land formed part of gazetted central forest reserves, found the plaintiffs’ title unlawful, and dismissed the suit with costs.
Sempebwa Nsubuga v National Forest Authority (Civil Suit No. 2917 of 2016) [2021] UGHCLD 179 (10 November 2021)
The court found that the suit land forms part of Kajjansi Central Forest Reserve, as established by statutory instruments and supported by expert evidence and cadastral records. Although the Plaintiff held certificates of title, these were subordinate to the public interest and statutory trust over forest land. The process of degazettement had not been completed by the Minister, and thus the land remained a forest reserve despite private titles. The Defendant's entry onto the land was authorized by law, and the Plaintiff's claim of trespass failed. The Plaintiff's evidence departed from his p…
Source excerpt
Nyarinkindi and 2 Others v New Forst Company Limited and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 409 of 2008) [2021] UGHCLD 131 (12 August 2021)
The court found that although the Plaintiffs were registered proprietors of the suit land, the Uganda Land Commission had no authority to lease land within Namwasa Central Forest Reserve, which has never been degazetted. The evidence, including survey reports and witness testimony, established that the suit land falls within the boundaries of the forest reserve. The law and binding precedents dictate that any title or lease granted over such land is illegal and void ab initio. The court held that the principle of indefeasibility of title does not protect titles obtained in violation of statut…
Source excerpt
National Forestry Authority v Omuhereza Basaliza & 39 Ors (Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2009) [2020] UGCA 85 (21 July 2020)
The Court of Appeal found that the respondents failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they were customary owners of the disputed land. The evidence did not establish long-term occupation, recognized custom, or lawful entitlement. The trial judge erred by not addressing the respondents' locus standi and by relying on survey reports that misinterpreted the legal boundaries of the forest reserve. The correct boundary, as per the 1950 plan and statutory instruments, covers 1,447.86 hectares, not 1,020 hectares. There is no 'excess land' outside the reserve available for private occupa…
Source excerpt
Tusingwire & 925 Others v Attorney General & Another (Civil Suit No. 26 of 2010) [2020] UGHC 49 (28 April 2020)
The court found that the plaintiffs were not lawful occupants but licensees, having settled on the land with local council permission but without legal title or statutory protection. The boundaries of Guramwa Central Forest Reserve were never conclusively opened or demarcated, and the defendants failed to prove the plaintiffs were within the reserve. The eviction was conducted without notice, due process, or a court order, violating Article 24 of the Constitution and the plaintiffs' right to dignity. The eviction was high-handed and resulted in loss of property and livelihoods, though no loss…
Source excerpt
National Forestry Authority Vs Muhereza Basaliza & Ors (Misc. Application No. 380 of 2018) [2019] UGCA 5 (23 January 2019)
The Court of Appeal granted National Forestry Authority an interim stay of execution pending determination of its substantive stay application, finding imminent garnishee threat and risk of nugatory appeal.
Mugerwa v National Forestry Authority (Civil Suit 5 of 2008) [2014] UGHC 106 (28 November 2014)
The High Court held that the suit land lay within Mujuzi Central Forest Reserve, making the plaintiff's lease and title unlawful, and dismissed the suit with costs.
Olyomoki & 416 others Vs National Forestry Authority (Civil Suit No. 161 of 2013) [2013] UGHCLD 91 (4 December 2013)
The High Court granted a temporary injunction preserving the applicants’ occupation of forest reserve land pending trial. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Rutaryabusha Eliphaz & Anor v The Attorney General & Anor (Misc. Cause No. 5 of 2007) (Misc. Cause No. 5 of 2007) [2007] UGHC 32 (24 January 2007)
The court determined that the applicants had presented facts disclosing a serious complaint that merits investigation by way of judicial review. Although a previous judgment (HCCS No. 902 of 1990) found that unlawful settlers in the forest reserve were not entitled to compensation, it was not clear at this stage whether the applicants fell within the same category as those plaintiffs. The determinable issue remains whether the applicants are within the boundaries of the forest reserve and thus lawful or unlawful occupants. On this basis, the court granted leave to apply for writs of mandamus…
Source excerpt
Florence Kahwa v Omukama, Bunyoro Kitara Kingdom (HCT-00-CV-CS-0051-2002) (HCT-00-CV-CS-0051-2002) [2005] UGHC 37 (9 December 2005)
The High Court of Uganda held that the plaintiffs exceeded a timber-cutting agreement by harvesting fresh trees, making the seizure of timber lawful under the Forests Act.
