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
Byeitima & Another v Asaba (Civil Appeal 19 of 2022) [2024] UGCA 312 (7 November 2024)
The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal in a land dispute, holding the respondent’s suit was time-barred, rejecting res judicata, and dismissing the claim.
Namakajo v KCB Bank Uganda Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application 523 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 108 (17 October 2023)
The court found that there is a substantial question regarding the ownership of the suit property, establishing a prima facie case in favor of the Applicant. The 2nd Respondent, whose name is on the title, did not defend the application, and the Applicant's evidence stands unchallenged. However, the court determined that any loss suffered by the Applicant could be compensated in monetary terms and is not irreparable. The balance of convenience favors the Applicant, as the property is a source of income for the Applicant's family, and the Respondent has other properties to recover the loan. Th…
Source excerpt
Oloka and Another v Birabwa (Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2019) [2023] UGHCLD 31 (24 January 2023)
The High Court found that the Respondent was only entitled to a portion of Plot 3221 (100 x 150 feet), not the entire plot, as evidenced by agreements and mutation forms. The 1st Appellant lawfully purchased his portion from the 2nd Appellant, a registered administrator, and took possession before the Respondent. There was no evidence of trespass by the 1st Appellant, who was deemed a bonafide purchaser for value without notice. The Respondent's registration of the entire plot was fraudulent, intended to defeat the unregistered interests of the Appellants and other occupants. The trial Magist…
Source excerpt
Kizito and Another v Uganda Muslim Supreme Council( UMSC ) and Another (Civil Suit No. 499 of 2018) [2022] UGHCLD 15 (7 February 2022)
The High Court found that the plaintiffs’ family had an equitable interest in the Natete land and that the defendants fraudulently included it in a later title.
