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, 04:32 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

22 Apr 2005

Civil Procedure [2005] UGHC 140

Caltex Oil (U) Limited v Petro Uganda Limited

Caltex Oil (U) Limited v Petro Uganda Limited (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 190 OF 2004) [2005] UGHC 140 (22 April 2005)

Court: High Court of Uganda
Case number: MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 190 OF 2004
Judge: Tabaro, J

The court found that the respondent's occupation of the suit property was illegal as it violated an interim order of injunction previously issued in favor of the applicant. The respondent was aware of the order through its counsel and could not claim ignorance or rely on non-extraction as a defense. The applicant demonstrated a prima facie case, potential for irreparable injury, and the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo, which was the applicant's occupation at the time of filing the suit. The respondent's registration as proprietor was tainted by knowledge of the appli…

Source excerpt

Temporary Injunction
Status Quo Preservation
Illegal Occupation
Sublease Dispute
Court Orders Enforcement

Read case analysis

Date unavailable

Land And Property [2007] UGSC 3

The Attorney General & Anor v Rutaama Geoffrey & Anor

The Attorney General & Anor v Rutaama Geoffrey & Anor [2007] UGSC 3 (5 July 2007)

Court: Supreme Court of Uganda
Judge: Katureebe, CJ, Mwangusya, JSC, Arach-Amoko, JSC, Mwondha, JSC, Tumwesigye, JSC

The Supreme Court found that the respondents entered and occupied Maruzi Ranch unlawfully, without proper authority from the District, and were lawfully evacuated following due process and multiple official meetings. The evidence presented by the respondents was found to be unreliable, inconsistent, and largely hearsay, failing to discharge the burden of proof required in civil cases. The court held that there was no credible evidence that the appellants or their agents destroyed or took the respondents' property or cattle. The trial judge's dismissal of the suit was correct, and the Court of…