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
Al Malik Group Uganda Limited & Another v Magala & Another (Civil Suit 753 of 2020) [2024] UGCommC 265 (3 September 2024)
The High Court held the defendants did not breach a joint venture agreement because the plaintiffs failed to make required monthly payments. A partial refund and costs were awarded.
Multiplex Limited v Ditaco Uluslararasi Ticaret ve Muteahhit Lik Limited Sirketi (Misc Cause 78 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 155 (31 May 2023)
The High Court granted interim protection pending arbitration, restraining alleged termination and third-party communications over a joint venture road project.
Muganyizi v 3 AT 1 Business Center Limited & Another (Civil Suit 776 of 2021) [2023] UGCommC 283 (28 March 2023)
The High Court found the defendants liable to pay the plaintiff UGX 78,529,000 under a memorandum of understanding, but declined general damages and interest.
Gallad Abi Samatar v Mohamud Abdule Mohammed (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2020) [2021] UGCommC 118 (1 November 2021)
The court found that the Applicant admitted to the joint business arrangement, pooling of funds, and undertaking to indemnify the Respondent. The only disputes raised were the amount to be refunded and the authenticity of the deed of acknowledgment. The Applicant failed to provide any evidence supporting the forgery allegation or to substantiate his claim that only USD 26,000 was owed. The Respondent's claim was supported by documentary evidence, including the deed of acknowledgment and postdated cheques. The Applicant did not deny issuing the cheques, and the signatures matched. The court co…
Source excerpt
Saba Gifco Uganda Limited V DFCU Bank Limited & 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 157 of 2017) [2020] UGHC 90 (17 July 2020)
The High Court dismissed Saba Gifco’s negligence claim over a collapsed boundary wall and allowed DFCU’s counter-claim in part, ordering a USD 9,975 refund.
Commodity Export International Ltd & Anor Vs Mkm Trading Company Ltd & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2008) [2015] UGCA 81 (16 October 2015)
The Court of Appeal held that computer-generated printouts, when created in the ordinary course of business and their authenticity is not challenged, constitute primary evidence under Ugandan law and common law principles. The appellants' diversion of joint venture funds to non-joint venture activities was established by documentary and testimonial evidence, amounting to breach of contract and fraud. The trial judge's award of general damages for foreign exchange loss was justified, even though special damages were not strictly proved, as the loss naturally arose from the breach. The lifting…
Source excerpt
Giuliano Garigio v Claudio Casadio (Civil Appeal 13 of 2010) [2013] UGSC 1 (29 January 2013)
The Supreme Court held that the Registrar of the Court of Appeal does not have the power to grant leave to file a Notice of Appeal out of time for appeals to the Supreme Court. Practice Direction No. 01 of 2004 only empowers Registrars to extend time for acts relating to the Court of Appeal, not the Supreme Court. The Notice of Appeal in this case was filed outside the prescribed 14-day period, and the purported extension granted by the Registrar was invalid. The withdrawal of the respondent's objection did not cure the procedural defect. Consequently, the appeal was incompetent and was struc…
Source excerpt
John Mweluka & Anor v Mustafa Katende Star (Civil Suit No. 244 of 2003) [2004] UGCommC 8 (23 March 2004)
The court found that there was a valid contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant, supported by consideration and mutual agreement. The defendant breached the contract by failing to perform his obligations after receiving the plaintiffs' contribution. Furthermore, the defendant's conduct amounted to fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit, as he knowingly made false statements about winning a tender to induce the plaintiffs to part with their money. The plaintiffs acted on these misrepresentations and suffered financial loss. The court rejected the plaintiffs' claim for speculative pro…
Source excerpt
Shiv Construction Co.Ltd V Endesha Enterprises Limited (Civil Appeal 34 of 1992) [1993] UGSC 21 (6 August 1993)
The Supreme Court of Uganda upheld a temporary injunction in a land and joint venture dispute, but varied the ancillary orders on timing, damages, and costs.
