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
Lapyem James Ochola v Aromorach Catherine (Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 528 (6 March 2025)
High Court land appeal dismissed after re-evaluating evidence, holding that alleged contradictions were minor, the respondent had possession, and the gift of unregistered land was valid.
Lapyem v Aromorach (Civil Appeal 40 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 81 (6 March 2025)
The High Court, as a first appellate court, re-evaluated all the evidence and found that the contradictions in the respondent's case were minor and immaterial to the determination of ownership. The evidence, including physical features observed at the locus in quo, supported the respondent's claim of possession and use of the suit land prior to the appellant's entry in 2020. The appellant failed to prove long and peaceful possession or to show physical evidence of prior occupation. The law on gifts inter vivos for unregistered land does not require a written instrument; exclusive occupation a…
Source excerpt
Sendagala v Kyomugisha & 2 Others (Civil Application 792 of 2022) [2024] UGCA 88 (28 March 2024)
The Court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the late filing and service of the Notice of Appeal. The delay was substantial, and the applicant's explanation—that he was awaiting leave to appeal—was not adequate, as the rules do not require leave to be obtained before lodging the Notice of Appeal. The Court further held that the intended appeal lacked merit, as the orders challenged arose from a review application to clarify minor omissions in the original judgment, not from a revision. The typographical error in titling the order as 'revision' instead of 'revi…
Source excerpt
Oyet Vs Okello (MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION No. 0053 OF 2017) [2018] UGHCCD 53 (25 October 2018)
The High Court found that the magistrate's court described the disputed land by reference to natural and artificial monuments observed at the locus in quo, and illustrated its dimensions in a sketch map. Both parties' estimates of acreage were subjective and imprecise, whereas monuments provide certainty and are less prone to error. The established legal principle is that monuments govern over measurements in land disputes. The applicant failed to demonstrate any material irregularity in the procedure or decision of the lower court that would justify revision. Furthermore, the application for…
Source excerpt
Tibezinda and Others v Kisembo and Others (Civil Appeal No. HCT-12-CR-CA-0005-2014) [2016] UGHC 7 (23 March 2016)
The High Court allowed a land appeal, finding the respondents had not proved 90 acres or clear boundaries and that the trial court relied on conjecture.
Mishaki Mazima v Byanyima and Another (HCT-05-CV-CA-014-2005) [2011] UGHC 207 (15 September 2011)
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, upholding findings that the defendant failed to disprove the plaintiffs’ possession and ownership claim.
