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
Opoloti Oguluka v Ssenyonjo (miscellenous Application no.622.2025) [2025] UGHCLD 115 (27 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application for security for costs, holding that the respondent’s land claim was not frivolous and that no proof showed inability to pay.
Exim Bank (Uganda) Ltd v Westwinds Trading C.O Matco Ltd (Misc. Application No. 251 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 182 (24 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed Exim Bank’s application for security for costs, finding no proof that Westwinds Trading could not meet any costs order.
Kirumba Augustine v Lutakome Martin and Others (Miscellaneous Application No 100 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 570 (23 June 2025)
The High Court of Uganda at Mpigi dismissed an application to strike out a plaint and dismiss a land suit, holding that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action.
Harriet Nattu Mukasa and Another v Serunjogi Isaac and Others (Miscellaneous Application 68 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 374 (4 June 2025)
The court found that the respondents' affidavit in reply, though filed out of time, did not cause prejudice to the applicants and should not be struck out, emphasizing substantive justice over technicalities. On the merits, the court determined that the applicants had been in possession of the suit land for over 20 years without challenge, and the respondents failed to provide evidence linking their claimed property to the suit land or to demonstrate any legitimate interest or possession. The respondents' claims were found to be largely speculative and unsupported by credible evidence. Applyi…
Source excerpt
Magandaazi v Millard (Miscellaneous Application 249 of 2025) [2025] UGHCLD 66 (29 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application for security for costs, finding the respondent’s land and company-property claim was prima facie arguable and not frivolous.
Mukwaya v Bwambale & Another (Civil Suit 13 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1064 (4 November 2024)
The court found that the preliminary objections raised by the Defendants could not be sustained at this stage. The objection regarding limitation required evidence beyond the plaint, specifically the capacity in which the 1st Defendant executed the warrant, which is not appropriate for determination on a preliminary objection. The objection regarding absence of a cause of action was overruled because, even though the Plaintiff was unrepresented and expressed his claims in layman's terms, the plaint sufficiently disclosed causes of action against both Defendants. The court emphasized the const…
Source excerpt
Cantina Bar and Restaurant (SMC) Ltd and Another v Humura and Another (Miscellaneous Application 341 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCD 162 (25 October 2024)
The High Court dismissed a suit as an abuse of process, finding it duplicated an earlier case, lacked a disclosed cause of action, and was vexatious.
Kisitu v Kigozi (Civil Appeal 62 of 2018) [2024] UGHCLD 242 (21 October 2024)
The High Court upheld dismissal of a land appeal as time-barred, but ordered the counterclaim returned to the trial court for hearing.
Omari and Another v Hon. Adoa and 5 Others (Civil Suit 734 of 2021) [2024] UGHCCD 155 (11 October 2024)
The court found that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action against the 6th defendant, as no facts were pleaded showing its liability for impounding or disposal of the fish. The evidence established that the impounded fish was immature and contraband under Ugandan law, justifying the actions of the 1st-5th defendants in impounding and disposing of the consignment pursuant to a valid court order. The plaintiffs failed to provide credible evidence of ownership, proper documentation, or declaration of the alleged cash, and their claims were riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies.…
Source excerpt
Basabe & 2 Others v Dependable Outcomes Limited (Miscellaneous Application 570 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 357 (3 October 2024)
The High Court struck out a plaint against three company directors, holding the contract was with the company and no personal liability was pleaded.
