Nakigudde Miriam v Neema John (Civil Appeal 7 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 494 (19 June 2025)
Court
High Court of Uganda
Case number
Civil Appeal 7 of 2023
Judge
Wolayo, J
The High Court partly allowed an appeal in a land dispute, holding that the respondent’s kibanja was about seven acres and ordering him to vacate any excess land.
Joseph Kasozi Lubega and Others v Kaggwa Sonko (Civil Appeal 123 of 2023) [2025] UGHCLD 67 (2 June 2025)
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
Civil Appeal 123 of 2023
Judge
Naluzze Aisha Batala, J
The High Court found that the respondent lawfully acquired the suit Kibanja through a sale from Bukenya Muhammad, who had previously purchased it from John Lubega. The absence of the buyer's signature on the 1981 sale agreement did not invalidate the transaction, as the conduct of the parties and subsequent possession by the respondent evidenced mutual assent and part performance. The court held that the respondent established sufficient possession by commencing construction and maintaining presence on the land, as corroborated by oral evidence and the locus in quo visit. The appellants' acti…
Settuba v Sserunkuma (Civil Appeal 21 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 285 (12 May 2025)
Court
High Court of Uganda
Case number
Civil Appeal 21 of 2024
Judge
Karemani Jamson K, J
The High Court allowed a land appeal after finding the trial court relied on unrecorded locus in quo observations, set aside the judgment, and ordered a retrial.
Ogwang Francis v Apili Sarah (Civil Appeal No. 045 of 2021) [2025] UGHC 262 (8 May 2025)
Court
High Court of Uganda
Case number
Civil Appeal No. 045 of 2021
Judge
Okello, J
The High Court upheld a land judgment for the respondent, finding the appellant failed to prove a 2014 redistribution or invalidate the 2012 family distribution.
Lapyem James Ochola v Aromorach Catherine (Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 528 (6 March 2025)
Court
High Court of Uganda
Case number
Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2022
Judge
Phillip Odoki, J
High Court land appeal dismissed after re-evaluating evidence, holding that alleged contradictions were minor, the respondent had possession, and the gift of unregistered land was valid.
Lapyem v Aromorach (Civil Appeal 40 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 81 (6 March 2025)
Court
High Court of Uganda
Case number
Civil Appeal 40 of 2022
Judge
Phillip Odoki, J
The High Court, as a first appellate court, re-evaluated all the evidence and found that the contradictions in the respondent's case were minor and immaterial to the determination of ownership. The evidence, including physical features observed at the locus in quo, supported the respondent's claim of possession and use of the suit land prior to the appellant's entry in 2020. The appellant failed to prove long and peaceful possession or to show physical evidence of prior occupation. The law on gifts inter vivos for unregistered land does not require a written instrument; exclusive occupation a…
Owor v Nareo & 3 Others (Civil Appeal 41 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 78 (3 March 2025)
Court
High Court of Uganda
Case number
Civil Appeal 41 of 2023
Judge
Philip W Mwaka
The High Court allowed a land appeal, set aside a trial court finding of trespass and damages, and held that the appellant owned the disputed customary land.
Nakku v Nagawonye (Revision Cause 6 of 2024) [2025] UGHCFD 6 (17 February 2025)
Court
HC: Family Division (Uganda)
Case number
Revision Cause 6 of 2024
Judge
Echookit, J
The High Court dismissed a revision challenge to refusal of execution in a divorce property dispute, holding the magistrate acted lawfully and within jurisdiction.
Moro and 3 Others v Nyeko and 3 Others (Civil Appeal 272 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 37 (31 January 2025)
Court
High Court of Uganda
Case number
Civil Appeal 272 of 2024
Judge
Mwaka, J
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, upheld findings that the respondents owned the suit land at Labima Ward, and confirmed the appellants were trespassers.
Masette & Another v Khainza (Civil Appeal 171 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 25 (28 January 2025)
Court
High Court of Uganda
Case number
Civil Appeal 171 of 2022
Judge
Lubega, J
The appellate court found that the respondent lawfully purchased the suit land from the original vendors in 2008, supported by credible oral testimony from the vendors and other witnesses. The appellants failed to produce the original purchase agreement, which they admitted to possessing, and did not rebut the respondent's allegation of theft. The 1st appellant did not have a valid interest to transfer to the 2nd appellant, who also failed to exercise due diligence before purchasing the land. The trial magistrate's minor procedural errors during the locus in quo visit were not fatal, as the e…