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
Nived Enterprises Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application 301 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCD 82 (17 May 2024)
The High Court refused an interlocutory mandatory injunction sought to restore a withholding tax exemption, finding the exemption had already been revoked before filing.
Kamya and 4 Others v Lugolobi Gitta (Civil Application 1013 of 2023) [2024] UGCA 6 (29 January 2024)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a stay application for being filed directly in the appellate court without first going to the High Court, as required by the rules.
Bacumikire Fred v Mwesigye George, Busesire Geofrey & Innocent (Miscellaneous Application 338 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 5 (9 January 2024)
The High Court of Uganda held the respondents in contempt for breaching an order restraining activity on disputed land and imposed a UGX 10 million fine.
Mpiima v Mutumba and Another (Miscellaneous Application 3053 of 2023) [2024] UGHCLD 2 (2 January 2024)
The court found that the applicant had established an equitable interest in the suit land, having purchased it and paid the full purchase price, and that the caveat was his only safeguard pending resolution of the dispute. The respondents did not contest the application, and the facts deponed by the applicant were deemed admitted. The court applied the principles that a caveat should be maintained where there are sufficient grounds, a pending suit, and the balance of convenience favors its maintenance. The court held that removing the caveat would risk further complicating the dispute and pot…
Source excerpt
Ladha Industries Limited v Bank of Uganda and Another (Miscellaneous Application 257 of 2023) [2023] UGHCLD 190 (6 July 2023)
The High Court declined to reinstate a garnishee order nisi pending appeal, finding that doing so would effectively decide the appeal at an interlocutory stage.
Nanono v Nakintu (Miscellaneous Application No. 1777 of 2020) [2022] UGHCLD 69 (18 May 2022)
The High Court ordered disputed rental proceeds from a kibanja to be paid into a jointly managed escrow account pending determination of the main ownership suit.
Kahiire v Lutaaya (Miscellaneous Application 1617 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 155 (9 May 2022)
The High Court granted attachment before judgment over a BOMAG asphalt roller, finding the applicant had an arguable claim and that the machine was depreciating.
Nankoomi and Another v Onwuvuche and 4 Others (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1405 of 2021) [2021] UGHCLD 180 (26 November 2021)
The Applicants demonstrated that they are the registered proprietors of the suit land and have been in possession since 2007. The Respondents' construction of temporary structures on the land constitutes trespass and poses a risk of further alienation, which could result in irreparable injury to the Applicants. The Court found that damages would not adequately compensate the Applicants for the loss of their proprietary interests. The balance of convenience was found to favor the Applicants, as their possession and title should be protected pending the final determination of the main suit. The…
Source excerpt
Linyi Huatai Battery Manufacturing Company Limited v Musa AF Enterprises Company Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 573 of 2020) [2021] UGCommC 35 (12 August 2021)
The High Court extended an Anton Piller order in a trademark dispute, holding that the applicant’s registered rights justified interlocutory protection pending the main suit.
Linyi Huatai Battery Manufacture Co Ltd v Musa AF Enterprises Co Ltd (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 425 of 2020) [2020] UGCommC 26 (13 July 2020)
The Applicant established an extremely strong prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off against the Respondent, supported by affidavit evidence and documentary proof of trademark registration. The damage caused by the Respondent's actions, including loss of market share, revenue, and reputation, was found to be serious and irreparable. The Applicant demonstrated a real risk that the Respondent would destroy or dispose of incriminating materials before an interpartes hearing, thereby defeating the ends of justice. The Court, applying the principles from Anton Piller KG v Manuf…
Source excerpt
