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
Mwebaze and Another v Basemera (HCT-01-LD-MA-0061-2025) [2025] UGHC 555 (14 July 2025)
The High Court granted a temporary prohibitory injunction to stop further destruction of disputed estate land, but refused a mandatory injunction to restore possession.
Mugisha v Uganda Law Society & 7 Others & Nabasa v Uganda Law Society & Another (Miscellaneous Application 1243 of 2024; Miscellaneous Application 1262 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCD 203 (13 December 2024)
The High Court granted temporary and mandatory injunctions over Uganda Law Society council decisions, an EGM, JSC elections, and a disputed candidate exclusion.
CFAO Motors Uganda Limited & 7 Others v The Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Assets Authority & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 205 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCD 83 (17 May 2024)
The court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate the exceptional and special circumstances required for the grant of a mandatory injunction at the interlocutory stage. The issuance of Circular No. 7 of 2023 by the 1st respondent was within its statutory mandate under the PPDA Act, and the applicants' allegations of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety are matters for determination in the main judicial review application. Granting a mandatory injunction at this stage would risk preempting the main cause, disrupt ongoing government contracts, and adversely affect third…
Source excerpt
Nankoomi and Another v Onwuvuche and 4 Others (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1405 of 2021) [2021] UGHCLD 180 (26 November 2021)
The Applicants demonstrated that they are the registered proprietors of the suit land and have been in possession since 2007. The Respondents' construction of temporary structures on the land constitutes trespass and poses a risk of further alienation, which could result in irreparable injury to the Applicants. The Court found that damages would not adequately compensate the Applicants for the loss of their proprietary interests. The balance of convenience was found to favor the Applicants, as their possession and title should be protected pending the final determination of the main suit. The…
Source excerpt
Rashida Abdul Hanali v Adrisi (MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION No. 0011 OF 2017) [2017] UGHCCD 96 (20 July 2017)
High Court ruling on interim injunctions in a land dispute: the court restrained alienation of the property and ordered rental income to be deposited pending trial.
Batwawula v UMEME Limited (MISCELLENOUS APPLICANT EDT 1 of 2014) [2014] UGEDT 1 (30 September 2014)
The tribunal held that the applicant failed to satisfy the criteria for grant of an interim mandatory injunction for reconnection of electricity supply. Although the applicant alleged business losses and hardship, he provided no proof of such losses. The tribunal found that the respondent acted within its authority in disconnecting supply for alleged meter tampering and had offered to reconnect upon payment of 50% of the disputed sum, which the applicant failed to pay. The tribunal emphasized that willingness to pay or provide security is a key consideration in such applications. In the absen…
Source excerpt
Nakibuuka v Sematimba & Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 52 of 2014) [2014] UGHCFD 36 (30 June 2014)
The court found that while the applicant raised serious triable issues regarding alleged fraud and intermeddling with the estate of the late Paulo Sebalu, the main suit did not concern the administration of the estate or the validity of a will, making the appointment of administrators pendente lite inappropriate. The court further held that the applicant, through her actions in executing the interim order, participated in an illegality by effecting an eviction not authorized by the order, thereby failing to come to court with clean hands. As equitable remedies are discretionary, the applicant…
Source excerpt
Ssekikubo & 3 Others v Attorney General & 4 Others (Constitutional Application 6 of 2013) [2013] UGSC 21 (10 October 2013)
The Supreme Court held that the applicants' intended appeal, insofar as it challenges decisions of the Constitutional Court involving interpretation of constitutional provisions, is appealable as of right. The Court found that the applicants satisfied the conditions for a stay of execution: they had lodged their notice of appeal diligently, raised arguable issues with likelihood of success, and would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was not granted, as their parliamentary mandates would be lost. The Court exercised its discretion to grant a stay of execution of the Constitutional Court's o…
Source excerpt
