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
Sari Consulting Limited v Francis Magambe Byaruhanga (Civil Suit No. 543 of 2020) [2025] UGCommC 180 (15 April 2025)
The High Court held that a share-sale contract was valid and that COVID-19 disruption to a related subcontract did not frustrate the payment obligation. The Defendant was found in breach.
Lexington Properties Limited v Alliance Media Uganda Limited (Civil Suit 682 of 2021) [2025] UGCommC 3 (22 January 2025)
The High Court held that the defendant did not validly terminate the licence and that Covid-19 did not frustrate the agreement. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff.
Nsereko and Another v Kanjeyo and Another (HCCS 702 of 2021) [2023] UGHCLD 350 (27 October 2023)
The High Court held that a land sale contract was frustrated by COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, ordered a refund of the purchase price, and declined damages.
Watoto Limited v MarKmat Agro Processors Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 526 of 2019) [2023] UGHCCD 99 (14 April 2023)
The High Court held that two binding contracts existed, rejected frustration and duress arguments, allowed the debt claim, and dismissed the counterclaim.
Kyotera Tax Operators Cooperative Union v Attorney General & 2 Others (Civil Suit 35 of 2018) [2023] UGHC 335 (1 April 2023)
The court found that the presidential directive abolishing the impugned taxation regime was made in good faith and within the president's constitutional mandate to protect citizens from unlawful deprivation of property. The contract between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant was frustrated by this lawful intervention, rendering it unenforceable due to illegality. The court held that contracts based on illegality cannot be sanctioned or enforced by the courts. Since the contract was voided by operation of law and the sums paid under the contract had already been refunded by consent, the plain…
Source excerpt
Kaluuma Kassim and Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2013) [2021] UGCA 226 (22 December 2021)
The Court of Appeal found that the enactment of the Kampala Capital City Act 2010 fundamentally altered the legal and administrative framework governing Kampala, transforming it from a local government entity to a central government entity. The new Act introduced radically different appointment procedures and qualifications for the Public Accounts Committee, which were not contemplated or provided for in the Appellants' contracts. The Court held that these changes were not self-induced by either party and were unforeseeable at the time of contracting. Applying the doctrine of frustration as c…
Source excerpt
Standard Chartered Bank (U) Limited v Ssekamatte (Civil Suit 873 of 2020) [2021] UGCommC 142 (20 May 2021)
The High Court held that a loan borrower remained liable despite losing employment, and entered judgment for the bank for the outstanding balance, interest, and costs.
Revoluntionary ADS and Designs Ltd v Board of Trustees of Nakivbo Stadium (Civil Appeal No. 131 of 2013) [2021] UGCA 9 (31 March 2021)
The Court of Appeal upheld a counterclaim for rental arrears, rejected frustration and breach claims, but held the trial court wrongly found an agency relationship.
James Mundele Sunday v Pearl of Africa Tours and Travel (HCCS 89 of 2011) [2016] UGCommC 23 (11 March 2016)
The High Court found a hire contract existed, but held the vehicle’s breakdown frustrated performance. The plaintiff failed to prove negligence, and the suit was dismissed with costs.
Kaluuma Kassim and 4 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Civil Suit No. 313 of 2011) [2012] UGHCCD 302 (15 November 2012)
The court found that the plaintiffs' employment contracts were frustrated by operation of law due to the enactment of the Kampala Capital City Authority Act, 2010, which abolished Kampala City Council and established a new authority with a different appointing procedure for the Public Accounts Committee. The contracts did not provide for such a change, and the new legal framework rendered performance of the original contracts impossible and radically different from what was contemplated. The doctrine of frustration applied, and it would be unjust to hold the defendant liable for breach of con…
Source excerpt
