Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 04:51 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

7 Jun 2023

Land And Property [2023] UGHCLD 222

Lubega v Lunyange

Lubega v Lunyange (Civil Appeal 65 of 2018) [2023] UGHCLD 222 (7 June 2023)

Court: HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number: Civil Appeal 65 of 2018
Judge: Kazibwe, J

The Respondent's occupation of the suit land was uninterrupted from 1973, predating the Appellant's acquisition in 2010. The evidence did not support the Appellant's claim that the Respondent became a trespasser after the 2001 agreement, which was found to lack credibility and evidential weight. The Respondent qualifies as a bona fide occupant under Section 29(2)(a) of the Land Act, having occupied the land unchallenged for over twelve years. The Appellant, having purchased the land with knowledge of the Respondent's occupation, is bound by existing equities and cannot seek eviction or a decl…

Source excerpt

Bona Fide Occupancy
Landlord And Tenant Relations
Compensation For Land
Trespass To Land
Costs Award

Read case analysis

1 Jan 1947

Land And Property [1947] EACA 84

Mootasamy v Ahmed

Mootasamy v Ahmed (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 147) [1947] EACA 84 (1 January 1947)

Court: East African Court of Appeal
Case number: Civil Appeal No. 7 of 147
Judge: Bourke J

The court held that in the absence of an express covenant prohibiting sub-letting, the tenant retained a common law right to sub-let the premises. Section 11(1)(h) of the Increase of Rent Ordinance, 1940, does not create a statutory prohibition or covenant against sub-letting where none exists in the tenancy agreement. The sub-letting in question was effected while the contractual tenancy was still in force and was therefore lawful. Upon termination of the head tenancy, the tenant lost protection under the Ordinance and could be evicted, but the sub-tenant, having been lawfully sub-let the pr…