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
Kacungumbe v Aneker & Another (Miscellaneous Application 37 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 808 (29 August 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to strike out a land and estate suit as time barred, holding that fraud and title acquisition issues required a full hearing.
Kyomuhendo v Ongei and 2 Others (Civil Appeal 32 of 2020) [2024] UGHC 179 (29 February 2024)
The High Court found that the Appellant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his father's title lawfully included all the land in dispute and did not encroach on land with pre-existing customary interests of the Respondents. The evidence presented by the Appellant was insufficient, lacking critical documentation such as inspection reports and neighbor consents, and failed to explain the absence of immediate neighbors' involvement in the lease process. The court held that the Respondents' fathers' occupation of the land predated the Appellant's father's acquisition of title, an…
Source excerpt
Semambo and 4 Others v Kawamara Mishambi (CIWL APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2011) [2019] UGCA 2116 (19 July 2019)
The Court of Appeal held that the appellants' plaint disclosed a cause of action as it pleaded facts showing their status as lawful occupants and alleged fraudulent acquisition of title by the respondent's predecessor. The trial judge erred by considering extraneous matters and not confining himself to the plaint and its annextures. The suit was not time-barred because the claim was for protection of occupancy rights, not recovery of land, and the relevant law (the Constitution and Land Act) does not prescribe a limitation period for such claims. The trial judge further erred by upholding pre…
Source excerpt
Nakiwala v Bongole and 4 Others (Civil Suit No. 163 of 2013) [2014] UGHC 110 (19 November 2014)
The High Court held that Agnes Nakiwala lawfully acquired title to the disputed land, dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim, and ordered vacant possession.
Mohammad B. Kasasa v Jasphar Buyonga Sirasi Bwogi (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2008) [2009] UGCA 79 (19 October 2009)
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in law by allowing the amendment of the plaint to include the time when the respondent discovered the alleged fraud, as this amendment would have the effect of defeating the appellant's statutory defence of limitation. The court emphasized that statutes of limitation are strict and inflexible, and amendments that would deprive a party of a vested right under the limitation law should not be permitted. The omission to plead the date of discovery of fraud was attributable to the respondent's counsel, and the client is bound by such omissions.…
Source excerpt
Sylevaster Tibigyayo v Margret Kahinju & Anor (Civil Suit No. DR. MFP 12/88) [1991] UGHC 19 (22 May 1991)
The court held that the plaint, when scrutinized, revealed that the plaintiff had occupied and cultivated the disputed land for years, had applied for a lease, paid the required fees, and received instructions to survey the land. The plaint further alleged that the defendants subsequently had the land surveyed and registered in their names, thereby blocking the plaintiff's opportunity to obtain title. The court found that the plaint alleged the defendants obtained the title fraudulently and sought a declaration to that effect. Applying the principles from Auto Garage vs Motokov and other auth…
Source excerpt
