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
Magandaazi v Millard (Miscellaneous Application 249 of 2025) [2025] UGHCLD 66 (29 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application for security for costs, finding the respondent’s land and company-property claim was prima facie arguable and not frivolous.
Tumwine v Kiyingi (Civil Suit 632 of 2020) [2024] UGHCLD 281 (13 November 2024)
The High Court held that the plaintiff lawfully owned the kibanja, found the defendant in trespass and contempt, ordered eviction, injunction, damages, and a fresh survey.
Kibombo & Another v Kikomeko & Another (Civil Suit 978 of 2019) [2024] UGHCLD 246 (31 October 2024)
The High Court held that the plaintiffs held valid title to the land, found the defendants had no proven Kibanja interest, and declared them trespassers.
Aloysius Kakande v Attorney General and Others (Civil Suit No. 125 of 2018 and 22 of 2021) [2024] UGHC 1283 (25 September 2024)
The court found that the plaintiff lawfully acquired and was registered as proprietor of Gomba Block 138 Plots 2, 4, and 5, based on a valid sale agreement, a binding judgment in rem, and proper registration. Allegations of forgery and fraud by the defendants were not proved to the required standard; the forensic report relied on by the defendants was not properly adduced in evidence. The court presumed the authenticity of the mutation forms and sale agreements as ancient documents. The registration of the 4th defendant on Plot 8 was found lawful, but only as to the residue of the late Nsimbi…
Source excerpt
Ssentambule v Oboth (Civil Appeal 19 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 540 (28 May 2024)
The High Court allowed an appeal against striking out a defence in a land trespass suit, holding the defence raised triable issues about a kibanja interest.
Sseguya v Lwanga (Civil Appeal 29 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 496 (15 April 2024)
High Court appeal challenging a land dispute decision was dismissed, with the court finding no need for landlord consent and only minor inconsistencies in land size.
Tinkasimire v Kayiwa (Civil Appeal 4 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 424 (28 March 2024)
The High Court found that the appellant and Rev. Fr. Phillip Balikudembe exercised sufficient due diligence in purchasing the suit land, as evidenced by the involvement of the vendor and the entire L.C1 committee in the transaction and the proper transfer of title. The respondent's alleged purchase agreement was found to be invalid due to lack of endorsement and consideration, and no credible evidence was presented to support the claim of prior occupation or fraudulent acquisition of title by the appellant. The trial magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to recognize the appellant's due…
Source excerpt
Kabaka of Buganda v Luwalala and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 3672 of 2023) [2024] UGHCLD 137 (4 March 2024)
The applicant, though not a party to the original suit, is found to be an aggrieved party due to his demonstrated interest in the suit property and the introduction of new information regarding its ownership. The court finds sufficient cause for review, noting that the applicant was condemned unheard and that the authenticity of the new evidence warrants further investigation. The judgment in Civil Suit No. 528 of 2014 is set aside, and the applicant is to be added as a party to the proceedings. The process for amending pleadings and filing defences is ordered, with each party to bear its own…
Source excerpt
Sserwadda v Ssempagi (Civil Appeal 57 of 2016) [2023] UGHC 398 (30 June 2023)
The High Court partly allowed a land appeal, holding that admitted facts in pleadings need not be proved and ordering boundary demarcation of the kibanja sold.
Agha Khan Foundation (U) v Nanteza and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1974 of 2022) [2023] UGHCLD 53 (9 March 2023)
The High Court declined to review earlier land orders, finding the dispute’s fraud and title issues needed oral evidence in an ordinary suit.
