Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 03:07 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

5 Jul 2024

Civil Procedure [2024] UGHC 638

National Animal Genetic Resources Centre and Data Bank v The Registered Trustees of Church of Uganda

National Animal Genetic Resources Centre and Data Bank v The Registered Trustees of Church of Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 156 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 638 (5 July 2024)

Court: High Court of Uganda
Case number: Miscellaneous Application 156 of 2023
Judge: Allan Nshimye, J

The court found that the applicant's proposed amendment was not brought in good faith, as it failed to join the Uganda Land Commission—the actual proprietor of the leasehold title—as a party, despite the amendment hinging on the ownership and registration of the suit land. The amendment sought to introduce new factual details and causes of action, including fraud and recovery of land, which were not part of the original pleadings. The contradictions regarding the applicant's interest in the land and the absence of the true proprietor as a party rendered the application malafide. The court exe…

Source excerpt

Amendment Of Pleadings
Counterclaim
Trespass To Land
Title Registration
Good Faith In Litigation

Read case analysis

19 Nov 2021

Employment And Labour [2021] UGIC 105

ASP Mugweri and 37 Others v Attorney General (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 127 of 2021)

ASP Mugweri and 37 Others v Attorney General (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 127 of 2021) [2021] UGIC 105 (19 November 2021)

Court: Industrial Court of Uganda
Case number: Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 127 of 2021
Judge: Ruhinda-Ntengye, J, Kagoye, Panel Member, Musimbi, Panel Member, Lapenga, Panel Member

The court found that the application to amend the claim was properly before it, not barred by law, and did not substitute or introduce a new cause of action or new parties. The applicants demonstrated that material facts, claims, and attachments were omitted due to previous counsel's errors, and amendment was necessary for the just determination of the controversy and to avoid multiplicity of suits. The application was brought in good faith, without delay, and would not occasion injustice to the respondent. The respondent's opposition was procedurally improper and not considered. The court ex…