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
Rwashande Yosam and Others v Kayiwa Vicent (Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2021) [2025] UGCA 175 (12 June 2025)
The Court of Appeal upheld dismissal of a land dispute appeal, finding no fraud proved against the respondent’s title and confirming trespass, damages, and costs.
Bugaywa v Kiriri Cotton Company Ltd and 3 Others (Civil Suit 25 of 2018) [2024] UGHC 500 (20 May 2024)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that her reversionary interest in the suit land was injured by the defendants' leasehold interests. Evidence showed that the suit land had long-standing leases in favour of the 1st defendant, subsequently transferred to the 2nd defendant, and that the plaintiff acquired her mailo interest subject to these leases. The plaintiff did not provide a sale agreement or search report to substantiate her claim of purchase without notice of the leases. The court held that the plaintiff was aware, or ought to have been aware, of the existing leases and…
Source excerpt
Biwaga v Driciru (Civil Suit 14 of 2013) [2024] UGHC 499 (26 March 2024)
The High Court of Uganda held that the disputed land was lawfully leased as public land to two tenants in common and ordered equal subdivision between their estates.
Kachra Investiment Company Limited v Mbale Municipal Council Local Covernment and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 193 of 2014) [2021] UGCA 60 (25 August 2021)
The Court of Appeal held that Plot 15A Bishop Wasike Road and Plot 20 Malukhu Road are not the same property; the suit land is Plot 15A Bishop Wasike Road. The 1st respondent's lease, granted in 1959, was not extinguished by the abolition of statutory leases under the 1995 Constitution, as confirmed by Supreme Court precedent. The appellant's certificate of title for Plot 20 Malukhu Road was fraudulently and irregularly obtained, with no valid supporting documentation or Land Board minutes. The allocation of a lease to the appellant was invalid, as it was granted while the 1st respondent's le…
Source excerpt
Kanyanya v Owori (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2013) [2021] UGCA 123 (24 May 2021)
The Court of Appeal held that the Tororo District Land Board had no legal authority to allocate or lease the suit property after the expiry of the appellant's lease, as statutory leases to urban authorities were abolished by Article 286 of the 1995 Constitution. The suit property vested in the appellant upon the passing of the Constitution, and the District Land Board's purported lease to the respondent was invalid. The appellant, having remained in possession and invested in the property, retained a revisionary interest and was entitled to apply for freehold or recognition of ownership. The…
Source excerpt
Evarist Mugabi V China Road & Bridge Corporation Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 112 of 2014) [2014] UGHCLD 138 (10 June 2014)
The court held that only the claim in the subsequent suit asserting the existence of a valid lease between the parties is barred by res judicata, as it was directly and substantially in issue and decided in the former suit (H.C.C.S. No. 84 of 2013). However, other claims in the subsequent suit, such as those for execution of a proper lease, recovery of premium and ground rent, determination of equitable interest, and damages for developments, were not raised or determined in the former suit and are therefore not barred by res judicata. The court found that the plaint could not be wholly rejec…
Source excerpt
Diisi v Mbarara Stores Limited (Civil Suit No. 39 of 1995) [1999] UGHC 45 (16 March 1999)
The defendant, Mbarara Stores Ltd., is the lawful owner of Plot No.1, Mbaguta Street, Mbarara Municipality, by virtue of a valid leasehold title and certificate of repossession under the Expropriated Properties Act, 1982. The plaintiff's lease and developments on the property were null and void ab initio, as the property was not available for leasing when the allocation was made to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's activities amounted to trespass, and he is not entitled to compensation for improvements, general damages, or any declaration of ownership. The defendant is entitled to vacant possess…
Source excerpt
