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
Mugisha v The Registered Trustees of Fort Portal Diocese (HCT-01-CV-CS-0024 OF 2024) [2025] UGHC 536 (4 July 2025)
The High Court rejected preliminary objections, holding the land claim was not time-barred and that the plaint disclosed a cause of action.
Bukoyo Jaggery Mill Limited v Co-operative Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) and Sil Investments Ltd (Civil Suit No. 305 of 2019) [2025] UGCommC 189 (26 June 2025)
The High Court held that the defendants unlawfully lodged a caveat and advertised the plaintiff’s land for sale, finding no valid loan agreement or authority.
Tumwesige Abraham v Jemima Kisoke (Civil Appeal 218 of 2016) [2025] UGCA 212 (26 June 2025)
The Court of Appeal held that the first appellate court erred in granting substantive orders (eviction, refund of purchase price, and costs) without a trial on the merits after finding that the suit disclosed a cause of action and was not time barred. The appellate judge relied on matters not pleaded or proved by evidence, and some findings were based on facts requiring evidentiary proof. The court further found that the original suit was res judicata, as the subject matter had already been determined by a competent court between the same parties. The proper procedure, after overruling the pr…
Source excerpt
Nyamutale and Others v Bugaki Sub-County Local Government (HCT-01-CV-ML-0004-2024) [2025] UGHC 443 (19 June 2025)
The High Court struck out an appeal against a Deputy Registrar’s order because it was filed outside the seven-day limit and no leave to appeal out of time was sought.
The Registered Trustees of the Banakalori Brothers v ATC Uganda and Eaton Towers (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 104 of 2017) [2025] UGHC 557 (18 June 2025)
The court found that the defendants and their predecessors continued to use the plaintiff's land by way of an access road, electric wires, and underground fibers after the termination of the lease agreement, without the plaintiff's consent. This constituted continuing trespass, and the limitation period did not bar the claim due to the ongoing nature of the trespass. The access road was created as a contractual easement for the duration of the lease and did not become a perpetual easement for the defendants. The plaintiff failed to prove special damages and mesne profits, as there was no evid…
Source excerpt
Esther Ssempebwa v Andrew Babigumira and Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Application No. 505 of 2025) [2025] UGHCLD 86 (13 June 2025)
The court found that the application for review was filed within the statutory limitation period of 12 years as provided by section 3(3) of the Limitation Act, and thus was not barred by limitation or inordinate delay. However, the court held that the applicant's allegations centered on fraud and illegality in the issuance of the vesting order, which are contentious matters requiring thorough investigation and cannot be determined on affidavit evidence in a review application. The proper procedure for resolving such disputes is by filing an ordinary suit or joining existing suits concerning t…
Source excerpt
Namagera Rovincer and Others v Lwanga Kagujje Patrick (Civil Suit 240 of 2017) [2025] UGHCFD 54 (13 June 2025)
The High Court held that the deceased died intestate, overruled a limitation objection, and found the defendant intermeddled with the estate by selling estate land.
Kateregga Ronald v Kaweke James and Others (Miscellaneous Cause 180 of 2024) [2025] UGHCLD 83 (12 June 2025)
The High Court Land Division dismissed an application to deposit UGX 47 million in court, holding it was time-barred under the Limitation Act.
Lakai Uniforms Limited v Ssekatawa V. Mathias and Others (Civil Suit No. 384 of 2022) [2025] UGHCLD 81 (30 May 2025)
The High Court overruled preliminary objections based on limitation, stay for unpaid costs, and judgment on admission, holding that disputed fraud issues required trial.
Lusasizi & Others v Male (Miscellaneous Application 235 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 286 (9 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to strike out a land trespass suit, finding the plaint disclosed a cause of action, was not time barred, and the 1st applicant’s naming error was a correctable misnomer.
