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
Abaho v Kirwana (Miscellaneous Application 262 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 333 (15 May 2024)
The High Court of Uganda at Mpigi dismissed preliminary objections in a land dispute, holding the suit was not time-barred, disclosed a cause of action, and was not frivolous.
Byarugaba and Another v Amin (Miscellaneous Application 2183 of 2023) [2024] UGHCLD 5 (10 January 2024)
The court found that the plaint disclosed a cause of action as all three elements—existence of the plaintiff's right, its violation, and the defendant's liability—were pleaded. The Plaintiff demonstrated locus standi by showing prima facie ownership and interest in the suit property. The plaint was neither frivolous nor vexatious, and the requisite filing fees were paid. The objection regarding failure to file a reply to the written statement of defence was deferred to trial. Consequently, all preliminary objections raised by the Applicants were overruled, and the application was dismissed wi…
Source excerpt
Kalibbala v Mugoya and 6 Others (Civil Suit 146 of 2021) [2023] UGHCFD 56 (13 February 2023)
The court found that the plaintiff's plaint failed to disclose a cause of action against the defendants, as they are not legal administrators of the estate and no letters of administration have been granted. The Succession Act requires that only an appointed administrator can distribute or be sued regarding the estate. The plaintiff's prayers for distribution, sale, and payment of rent proceeds from the estate are legally unsustainable against the defendants, who lack the requisite capacity. The plaint is therefore frivolous, vexatious, and barred by section 191 of the Succession Act. The pre…
Source excerpt
Isaac Wanzige Magoola V Attorney General (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2019) [2019] UGHCCD 184 (16 August 2019)
The court found that the grounds raised by the applicant did not constitute errors apparent on the face of the record but were instead disagreements with the judgment and reasoning, which are matters for appeal, not review. The application was filed out of time and amounted to an abuse of court process, being both frivolous and vexatious. The court emphasized that review is limited to correcting manifest errors that are self-evident and not those requiring elaborate reasoning or constituting grounds of appeal. The application disclosed no reasonable cause for review and was dismissed with cos…
Source excerpt
