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
Kasango v Voice of Toro Ltd (HCT-00-CV-CS-0147 of 2001) [2004] UGHC 37 (15 December 2004)
The High Court dismissed an appeal over a dishonoured cheque, holding that the appellant failed to prove consideration and was not a holder in due course.
Rawal and Another v Singh (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1956) [1956] EACA 22 (1 January 1956)
The court held that endorsees of a dishonoured cheque could sue the drawer, even with notice of dishonour, subject to any defect of title at dishonour.
Daniel Meyer Export Ltd v Makali Cycle Mart (Civil Appeal No. 81 of 1954) [1950] EACA 26 (1 January 1950)
The Court of Appeal set aside a dismissal of a bill-of-exchange suit and remitted it for trial, holding the appellants should have been allowed to prove rights under sections 57 and 59.
Singh v Singh and Another (Civ. Case No. 152 of 1937) [1938] EACA 210 (1 January 1938)
The court held that the plaintiff, though in possession of the promissory note, could not sue on it in his own name because the note was payable to order and had not been endorsed to him. The statutory definition of 'holder' requires that the person suing must be either the payee or endorsee in possession, or the bearer if the note is payable to bearer. Since the plaintiff had negotiated the note and it had been endorsed to another party, his rights as payee were extinguished. Mere possession, without endorsement, does not confer the right to sue. Furthermore, the court found that the causes…
Source excerpt
Belge S.A. v Sibilia (C.A. 21/1934) [1934] EACA 1 (1 January 1934)
The Court held that the respondent was entitled under Rule 30 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1925, to contest the entire judgment and not merely the portion appealed by the appellants. Evidence admitted outside the pleadings was properly adjudicated upon as both parties addressed arguments on it and did not object. The trial judge correctly applied Field v. Carr in finding that the appellants, having appropriated notes A and D to the credit of Jivanjee Bros., could not recover their value from the respondent. Exhibit 11 was construed to provide for the promissory notes as continuing security f…
Source excerpt
