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
Bagalana Moses v Besi Musubika (Civil Appeal No. 275 of 2020) [2025] UGCA 236 (18 July 2025)
On second appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld findings that the appellant was a trespasser on the kibanja, rejected a limitation defence, and dismissed the appeal.
Semajeri Stephen & Others v Nyiramfabakuze Norah & Another (Civil Appeal 34 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 433 (12 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed an appeal over a land trespass dispute, upholding a finding that the respondents acquired the land by gift inter vivos and were lawfully in possession.
Bwanika Trevor Lukanga v Kiyingi Hannington and Another (Miscellaneous Application 240 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 371 (29 May 2025)
The High Court struck out a land recovery suit for lack of locus standi and limitation, holding that the attorneys’ powers were incompetent and the claim was time-barred.
Akankwasa v Bitarabeho & 2 Others (Civil Appeal 16 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 260 (29 April 2025)
The court held that neither the Appellant nor the Respondents could claim ownership of the suit land because the estate of the late Semei Kabonyi had not been administered in accordance with the law. No letters of administration had been obtained, and any distribution or occupation of the land by family members was legally ineffective in conferring ownership. The Appellant's claim for declarations of ownership and trespass failed because, under Section 187 of the Succession Act, no right to any part of the property of a person who died intestate can be established in court without a grant of…
Source excerpt
Wakigiri v Mukomazi and Another (Civil Suit No. 33 of 2020) [2025] UGHC 216 (18 April 2025)
The High Court at Masaka dismissed a land ownership claim, upheld the defendants’ title, found the plaintiff’s entry to be trespass, and awarded damages and an injunction on the counter-claim.
Aluma & 2 Others v Okuti (Civil Appeal 214 of 2017) [2025] UGCA 81 (24 March 2025)
The Court of Appeal held that the respondent had established constructive possession of the suit land through acts of fencing and cultivation, which entitled him to bring a suit for trespass. The concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were supported by evidence and could not be disturbed on a second appeal. The appellants' customary interests in the land were extinguished by their long period of inaction, as the Limitation Act applies to all land tenures, including customary land. The appellants' counterclaim for trespass was time-barred, having been filed 23 years after the responde…
Source excerpt
John Kintu Kalonde v Ssemujju Joseph and Others (Miscellaneous Application 253 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 303 (6 March 2025)
The High Court partly upheld a strike-out application in a land dispute, striking the suit against two defendants and ordering mediation for the remaining parties.
Kusiima and 3 Others v Bansigaraho (Miscellaneous Application 98 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 90 (17 January 2025)
The High Court at Hoima held that the suit was res judicata and time-barred, struck out the plaint, and dismissed the case with costs.
Nyakana Birungi v Birungi and Another (Miscellaneous Application 82 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 96 (17 January 2025)
The court found that the Applicant had provided a plausible explanation for her delay in replying to the counterclaim, namely the difficulty in retrieving old documents from multiple residences. The intended amendment and extension of time were sought before the hearing of the main suit, and the Respondents would not suffer injustice as they would have the opportunity to respond. The court held that the defence of limitation is a legal right and does not constitute a new cause of action. The failure of the 1st Respondent to file an affidavit in reply was deemed as non-opposition to the applic…
Source excerpt
Attorney General & Another v Byaruhanga & 2499 Others (Consolidated Appeals No. 246 & 375 of 2021) [2025] UGCA 19 (16 January 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that the respondents were not encroachers but had been lawfully allocated the suit land by presidential directive and had acquired title by adverse possession after 19 years of unchallenged occupation. The appellants failed to rebut the respondents' evidence or provide contrary documentation. The technical assessment and valuation report by PW4, though not prepared by a registered valuation surveyor, was admissible as expert evidence due to his specialized knowledge and experience as District Agricultural Officer. The respondents' claim for special damages was suffic…
Source excerpt
