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, 04:50 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

16 Oct 2014

Commercial And Corporate [2014] UGCommC 184

Capital Rentals Ltd v Weatherford Services & Rentals Ltd

Capital Rentals Ltd v Weatherford Services & Rentals Ltd (Civil Suit No. 85 of 2012) [2014] UGCommC 184 (16 October 2014)

Court: Commercial Court of Uganda
Case number: Civil Suit No. 85 of 2012

The court found that the Defendant was in possession and control of the Plaintiff's motor vehicle at all material times, having hired it for its own business purposes and directed its use and location. The Defendant, as bailee, was contractually obligated to safeguard and return the vehicle in its original condition. The accident and subsequent loss occurred while the vehicle was under the Defendant's control, and the Defendant failed to take reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized use or mitigate loss. The Defendant's attempt to shift responsibility to third parties was rejected, as ther…

Source excerpt

Breach Of Contract
Vicarious Liability
Special And General Damages
Contract Of Bailment
Hire Of Chattels

Read case analysis

14 Nov 2011

Commercial And Corporate [2011] UGSC 33

Monday v Attorney General

Monday v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 16 of 2010) [2011] UGSC 33 (14 November 2011)

Court: Supreme Court of Uganda
Case number: Civil Appeal 16 of 2010
Judge: Tumwesigye, JSC, Odoki, CJ, Katureebe, JSC, J.W.N.Tsekooko, JSC, Kisaakye, JSC

The Supreme Court held that the respondent did not specifically plead frustration as a defence nor as a ground of appeal, and failed to discharge the burden of proving frustration by destruction of the vehicle. The evidence showed only damage, not destruction, and the contract was not frustrated. State House retained constructive custody of the vehicle until it was released to a third party, and failed to issue notice of termination or return the vehicle, thus remaining liable for hire charges. The appellant took reasonable steps to mitigate his loss, and the trial judge erred in finding othe…