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
Kiggundu and Others v Kibumbi and Another (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.3539 OF 2023) [2024] UGHC 1217 (30 September 2024)
The High Court of Uganda refused to strike out the defence or enter judgment on admission, holding that the pleadings were not wholly general or unequivocal enough.
Kayizzi v Isabirye and 3 Others (Civil Appeal 11 of 2020) [2023] UGHCLD 130 (22 May 2023)
The appellate court found that the trial magistrate erred in law and fact by striking out the amended plaint. The amendment was made by consent and court order to add new parties following the subdivision and transfer of the disputed land, not to substitute the original cause of action in trespass. The trial magistrate lacked jurisdiction to set aside a consent order made by another magistrate of equal rank. The principles governing amendment of pleadings were misapplied, as the cause of action in trespass remained consistent throughout the plaints, and the amendment did not prejudice the res…
Source excerpt
Serufusa v Zirimenya and Others (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2013) [2022] UGCA 271 (10 November 2022)
The Court of Appeal held that the transfer of the suit land by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent was ultra vires the powers conferred by the power of attorney, which only authorized actions for monetary benefit and did not include authority to transfer the property to another party. Furthermore, the power of attorney lapsed upon the death of the donor, rendering any posthumous acts by the attorney illegal and void. The appellant, as a son and lineal descendant of the deceased, had locus standi to institute proceedings to protect his interest in the estate, even without letters of admin…
Source excerpt
Sserunkuma v Lutaaya and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 92 of 2016) [2022] UGHCLD 29 (25 February 2022)
The High Court rejected limitation and no-cause-of-action objections, holding the fraud claim accrued when the plaintiff discovered the alleged fraud in 2016.
Rev. Can .Kibirige and 4 Others v Musazi and Another (Civil Suit No. 106 of 2014) [2021] UGHCLD 134 (7 July 2021)
The High Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ land fraud and trespass claim and allowed the defendants’ counterclaim, ordering reinstatement of title and damages.
Ssajjabi v Namutebi Muyizzi and Another (Civil Appeal 25 of 2017) [2020] UGCA 2155 (27 February 2020)
The Court of Appeal upheld cancellation of title after finding the appellant fraudulently procured registration of land meant for a church.
Kamulegeya v Emmaus Foundation Ltd & Anor (Misc. Application No. 0038 of 2007) [2017] UGHCLD 104 (1 November 2017)
The court found that the amendments to the plaint fundamentally changed the nature and subject matter of the suit from wrongful transfer to fraudulent transfer, which is impermissible under the law. The amended plaint failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and lacked necessary particulars of fraud and relevant dates, rendering it incompetent and barred by limitation. The court held that consent by the Defendants to the amendment could not cure the illegality inherent in the amended plaint. Consequently, all preliminary objections were sustained, and the suit was struck out as incompe…
Source excerpt
Baligira and 7 Others v Kanyankole and 4 Others (Civil Appeal 100 of 2014) [2017] UGCA 135 (14 August 2017)
The Court of Appeal held that the absence of an instrument number on the duplicate certificate of title did not amount to fraud, as the registry copy contained the instrument number and no evidence was adduced to prove fraudulent conduct by the transferees. The evidence supported the existence of an oral contract and payment for the suit land between the original owners and the first buyers, and the transfer forms bore the genuine thumbprint and signature of the sellers. The respondents failed to strictly prove fraud as required by law. Consequently, the first to sixth appellants were bona fi…
Source excerpt
Mukasa Kyagaba v Patel (Civil Appeal Number 13 of 2006) [2015] UGCA 2025 (1 January 2015)
The Court of Appeal held that land sale and transfer transactions were void for lack of mandatory ministerial consent and ordered cancellation of the transfers.
Administrator-General v Nansubuga and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 21 of 2003) [2013] UGHC 262 (18 September 2013)
The High Court held the land claim was not time-barred, found the transfer into Semuyaga’s name fraudulent, cancelled the defendants’ title, and awarded nominal damages and costs.
