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
The Registered Trustees of the Hindu Union v Kagoro (Civil Reference 2 of 2022) [2024] UGSC 27 (25 June 2024)
The Supreme Court dismissed a reference seeking extension of time to file an appeal, holding that the applicant failed to explain post-lockdown delay and could not raise mistake of counsel anew.
Tumwine v Baleke alias Nsegumire and Another (HCCS 876 of 2020) [2023] UGHCLD 55 (9 March 2023)
The High Court struck out a land suit as time-barred, holding the cause of action arose in 2008 and the claim was filed outside the six-year limitation period.
Kyakimwa Sauda & Another V Eco Power Holdings Limited (EDT COMPLAINT 5 of 2019) [2022] UGEDT 1 (23 May 2022)
The Tribunal dismissed a land compensation complaint, finding the valuation process proper, the delay excessive, and a re-evaluation impractical after later development.
The Registered Trustees of the Hindu Union v Kagoro & 2 Others (Civil Application 46 of 2021) [2022] UGSC 32 (14 January 2022)
The Supreme Court struck out an application to extend time to file and validate an out-of-time appeal, finding no sufficient reason for delay after lockdowns ended.
M/s Kigezi Twimukye Co. Limited v Eng. Balaba (Civil Appeal 41 of 2012) [2015] UGHC 4 (23 September 2015)
The High Court dismissed an appeal over a company share-capital increase that diluted the respondent’s holding, finding the action oppressive and the suit timely.
Nabirye & 2 Ors Vs Kizito & 2 Ors (Civil Appeal No. 027 of 2014) [2015] UGHCCD 135 (26 May 2015)
The High Court dismissed an appeal over ownership of land claimed as part of an estate, holding that long, undisturbed occupation supported acquiescence and laches.
Mayuge District Local Gorvernment and Anor v Haji Kadiri Basalaki (Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2013) [2021] UGHC 4 (29 March 2021)
The High Court found that the respondent, Haji Kadiri Basalaki, had established ownership of the suit land through credible oral and documentary evidence, including a purchase agreement from 1984 and corroborating witnesses. The appellants failed to provide convincing evidence of a valid donation or transfer of the land to their predecessor. The court held that the respondent's claim was not barred by limitation or laches, as the trespass was continuous and the suit was filed within the statutory period after the respondent became aware of the encroachment. The trial magistrate's evaluation o…
Source excerpt
