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
Musoke v Kavuma Nakate (Civil Appeal 88 of 2017) [2024] UGHCLD 224 (20 September 2024)
High Court land appeal allowed: the respondent failed to prove purchase or lawful occupancy of the kibanja, and the court treated the occupier as a licensee.
Mugabi v Gaweera and 5 Others (Civil Appeal 17 of 2021) [2023] UGHCLD 322 (28 September 2023)
The High Court partly allowed a land appeal, holding that the trial court wrongly evaluated evidence and that the respondents, not the appellant, trespassed on the suit land.
Bugembe v Eriaku & Anor (Civil Suit No. 202 of 2016) [2018] UGHCLD 16 (27 February 2018)
The High Court held that the plaintiff was a lawful occupant, found the defendants obtained title by fraud, cancelled the title, and awarded damages and costs.
Kisitu v Bateesa (Civil Appeal No. 056 of 2011) [2014] UGHCLD 10 (20 March 2014)
The appellate court found that the trial magistrate's conclusion that the Respondent was a lawful or bona fide occupant was not supported by the evidence. The Respondent's claim to the land was based on a purchase from a squatter, Naome Namirembe, who had no title to pass, and the documentary evidence presented was vague and did not establish lawful occupation. The Respondent did not meet the requirements of section 29(2) of the Land Act, as he had not occupied or utilised the land for the requisite period, nor was there evidence of consent from the registered owner. The trial magistrate reli…
Source excerpt
Rwamuhanda v Tuhirirwe (Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2005) [2006] UGCA 55 (1 January 2006)
The Court of Appeal held that the appellant was a lawful and bonafide occupant of the land, so the eviction order and damages against her were set aside.
Kamadi Logonvu Vs Nandawula & 4 Ors (Civil Appeal No. 135 of 2014) [2019] UGCA 40 (29 March 2019)
The Court of Appeal held that the respondents' claim to occupancy rights on the suit property was erroneously founded on section 29(1)(b) of the Land Act, which does not extend lawful occupancy to spouses or lineal descendants by virtue of marriage or succession. Such rights are governed by the Succession Act, which requires the appointment of a legal representative and the establishment of succession rights through probate or letters of administration. The respondents did not challenge the appellant's registered title, which remains conclusive under the Registration of Titles Act. The High C…
Source excerpt
