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
Kambenkwine Christopher and Another v Rose Bella Rwomushana and Others (Civil Appeal No: 53 of 2014) [2024] UGCA 344 (19 December 2024)
Second appeal in a land dispute dismissed because the grounds raised mixed questions of law and fact, outside the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction.
Tumwine v Tindikyeitira (Miscellaneous Application 169 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1148 (18 October 2024)
The High Court at Hoima granted a consequential order for vacant possession, after an earlier judgment had omitted that prayer, to let the successful party access the land.
Tekereza & 2 Others v Kyaligonza & 2 Others (Civil Application 1114 of 2023) [2024] UGCA 153 (27 June 2024)
The Court found that the applicants had established arguable points of law and fact for appeal, and that they would suffer irreparable damage, including threat of arrest and eviction, if the stay was not granted. The balance of convenience favored the applicants, as the status quo on the suit land had been unsettled and the applicants faced imminent prejudice. The application was properly before the Court of Appeal due to substantial delay in the High Court. Accordingly, the Court granted a stay of execution of the orders in Miscellaneous Application No. 024 of 2023 pending the hearing of the…
Source excerpt
National Forestry Authority v Mulumba (Miscellaneous Application 19 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 587 (30 April 2024)
The High Court ordered a boundary opening and verification exercise in a land dispute between the National Forestry Authority and Mulumba Salayi.
Makumbi v Mugimba (Miscellaneous Application 459 of 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 114 (30 April 2024)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a sufficient reason for the inordinate delay of over five months in seeking extension of time to appeal. The applicant's explanation that his former lawyer failed to finalize the appeal process was not persuasive, as the time-bound orders of the lower court required prompt and diligent action. The applicant did not act with the necessary urgency, and the delay was not adequately accounted for. The court emphasized that there must be an end to litigation and that the successful party should not be prejudiced by the inaction of the unsuccessf…
Source excerpt
Bamanyisa and 156 Others v National Forestry Authority (Miscellaneous Application 42 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 388 (8 April 2024)
The High Court ordered a boundary opening of Matiri Central Forest Reserve to help determine whether the applicants’ land lies inside the reserve.
Karole and Another v Mugarra and 3 Others (HCT-01-CV-LD-CS 14 of 2015) [2024] UGHC 145 (5 April 2024)
The court found that the present suit is barred by res-judicata because the subject matter, parties (or their privies), and issues were previously adjudicated in Civil Suit No. MFP 32 of 1994 and an earlier 1987 suit. The plaintiffs' claim to ownership of the suit land was already determined, with the court previously declaring the land to be public and not customarily owned by the plaintiffs. The foundation of the plaintiffs' locus standi to challenge the defendants' title was thus extinguished by the prior judgment. The court further held that the defendants, as registered proprietors, have…
Source excerpt
Okumu & Another v National Forestry Authority & Another (Civil Appeal 70 of 2020) [2024] UGHC 76 (29 February 2024)
The High Court set aside a magistrate’s dismissal of a land suit, holding the plaint disclosed a cause of action and the parties were denied a fair hearing.
Nek Sam Odongo v Ekanya Malson (Civil Suit 25 of 2019) [2024] UGHC 9 (17 January 2024)
The High Court in Lira held that the plaintiff’s registered lease title proved ownership, declared the defendant a trespasser, and granted eviction, injunction, damages, and costs.
Mpanga and Another v Sebugwawo and Another (Civil Suit 436 of 2016) [2023] UGHCLD 381 (8 November 2023)
The court held that the existence of an arbitration clause in the memorandum of understanding is not disputed. The challenge to its enforceability based on the alleged illegality of the underlying contract does not automatically render the arbitration clause invalid. Section 16(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides that an arbitration clause is independent of the other terms of the contract, and its validity is not affected by a decision that the contract is null and void. The court further relied on precedent to affirm that disputes about the validity of the contract itself…
Source excerpt
