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
Kasande & 4 Others v Ssentamu (Civil Appeal 52 of 2022) [2024] UGHCLD 217 (11 September 2024)
The High Court dismissed an appeal over a land dispute, holding the appellants failed to prove lawful occupancy or entitlement to first option to purchase.
Mugerwa & 85 Others v Kanaba & 2 Others (Civil Suit 29 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 907 (6 September 2024)
The High Court held that most plaintiffs failed to prove individual claims, but recognized equitable interests in occupied land and ordered correction of the lease and title.
Kasumba Benon & 18 Others v Mujuzi Edwin & 2 Others (Civil Suit 409 of 2012) [2024] UGHCLD 52 (29 February 2024)
The court found that the Plaintiffs, as Kibanja holders, had established long-term occupation and interests in the suit land, supported by documentary evidence and a locus visit. The Defendants' aggressive litigation and lack of amicable settlement did not negate the Plaintiffs' lawful occupancy under the Land Act. The court rejected the res judicata argument due to jurisdictional uncertainties and lack of a singular competent prior court. The Plaintiffs were entitled to declarations of lawful occupancy, a joint survey to ascertain interests, a permanent injunction against interference, gener…
Source excerpt
Nalubega and Another v Kivumbi and Others (Civil Suit 176 of 2019) [2023] UGHCLD 216 (28 July 2023)
The High Court held that the plaintiffs’ Kibanja interest survived changes in title to the land, granted an injunction, awarded damages, and dismissed the counterclaim.
Nansikombi v Mugalu (Civil Appeal 85 of 2017) [2023] UGHCLD 217 (28 July 2023)
The High Court held that the plaintiffs held a Kibanja interest on the suit land, which survived later title transfers, and granted an injunction, damages, and costs.
Nsubuga and Another v Namugenyi and 4 Others (Civil Appeal 23 of 2021) [2022] UGHCLD 286 (3 November 2022)
The appellate court found that the trial Magistrate correctly determined the respondents' entitlement to 1.5 acres of Kibanja on the appellants' land, based on historical occupation dating back to the 1920s and the evidence presented at the locus in quo. The respondents' temporary abandonment of the land in 2000 was involuntary and did not extinguish their rights as bona fide occupants. The appellants' claim that the respondents were trespassers was rejected, as both parties acknowledged the respondents' prior occupation and interest in the land. The court held that involuntary abandonment do…
Source excerpt
Tusingwire & 925 Others v Attorney General & Another (Civil Suit No. 26 of 2010) [2020] UGHC 49 (28 April 2020)
The court found that the plaintiffs were not lawful occupants but licensees, having settled on the land with local council permission but without legal title or statutory protection. The boundaries of Guramwa Central Forest Reserve were never conclusively opened or demarcated, and the defendants failed to prove the plaintiffs were within the reserve. The eviction was conducted without notice, due process, or a court order, violating Article 24 of the Constitution and the plaintiffs' right to dignity. The eviction was high-handed and resulted in loss of property and livelihoods, though no loss…
Source excerpt
Mulyanti & Anor Vs Bateringaya & 4 Ors (Civil Appeal No. 0016 of 2010) [2019] UGCA 167 (2 July 2019)
The Court of Appeal found that the appellants failed to prove that they or their predecessor were lawful or bonafide occupants of the suit land. The evidence established that the suit land was sold by the appellants' predecessor's father to a third party, who then sold it to the respondents' predecessor. The subsequent occupation of the land by Moses Mulyanti was by permission of the registered owner as a caretaker, amounting to a licence, not a legal interest. Under Section 29(4) of the Land Act, a licensee cannot be considered a lawful or bonafide occupant, nor can such status be inherited…
Source excerpt
Sentonga and 2 Others v Sabiiti and 4 Others (Civil Suit No. 37 of 2012) [2015] UGHC 12 (22 October 2015)
The High Court found a land title dispute arose from fraudulent parallel registration in a ranch restructuring scheme and cancelled the defendants’ titles.
Sinnabulya v Sekibaala (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2005) [2013] UGHCLD 23 (12 March 2013)
The High Court allowed an appeal and set aside an ex parte decree, finding sufficient cause where an illiterate land occupant had been misled about procedure.
