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, 04:49 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

13 Sept 2024

Civil Procedure [2024] UGHC 918

Kwehangana v Amara

Kwehangana v Amara (Civil Appeal 15 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 918 (13 September 2024)

Court: High Court of Uganda
Case number: Civil Appeal 15 of 2024
Judge: Byaruhanga Rugyema, J

The appeal was dismissed because the contract between the parties was frustrated by the discovery that the land subject to titling fell within a Government gazetted resettlement scheme, making further performance impossible. The Respondent provided a reasonable and unchallenged accountability for the Ugx 4,000,000 received, detailing expenses incurred in the process of surveying and attempting to process the title. The Appellant failed to rebut the defence of impossibility of performance or to prove breach of contract. The trial Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence, framed the relevant…

Source excerpt

Contract Frustration
Impossibility Of Performance
Land Title Processing
Accountability Of Funds

Read case analysis

1 Jan 1950

Commercial And Corporate [1950] EACA 366

Maclaine Watson and Co. Ltd v Shah

Maclaine Watson and Co. Ltd v Shah (Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1956) [1950] EACA 366 (1 January 1950)

Court: East African Court of Appeal
Case number: Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1956
Judge: Bacon, JA, Briggs, JA, Sinclair, VP

The Court of Appeal held that the refusal of an import licence by the Government did not render the contract void for impossibility of performance under section 56 of the Indian Contract Act. The respondent's contractual obligation was to accept delivery of the rice at Mombasa and pay the contract price upon tender of proper shipping documents. There was no express or implied term requiring the appellant to obtain the import licence. The inability to import the rice into Kenya did not prevent the respondent from performing his contractual obligations, as he could have accepted the rice and di…