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
Bajombwe v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCT-01-CV-MA-0097-2024) [2025] UGHC 278 (25 April 2025)
The High Court granted the applicants unconditional leave to defend a summary suit by Uganda Revenue Authority, finding that triable issues arose over tax liability, interest, and business cessation.
Bahimbiriza Bidindwale v Total Energies E P Uganda B V (Civil Suit 36 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 1145 (13 December 2024)
The court found that the MOU between the parties and the defendant clearly stipulated that upon final determination of Civil Appeal No.52 of 2016, the compensation amount of Ugx 74,620,000/= would be paid to the successful party declared by court to be the owner of the land. The High Court judgment decreed the disputed land to the plaintiff, and no appeal was preferred by Ochaya Mugayo. The defendant's attempt to apportion the compensation based on acreage was rejected, as the MOU and the mapped land in dispute were clear and binding. The defendant's failure to file interpleader proceedings o…
Source excerpt
Post Bank Uganda Limited v Kato Eco Farming Limited & 7 Others (Civil Suit 168 of 2021) [2024] UGCommC 283 (26 March 2024)
The High Court held Kato Eco Farming Limited liable for UGX 615,601,000 plus interest and costs, but dismissed claims against the other defendants.
Thummar Shailesh Kumar Arvindhai v Nokas Contractors Co. Limited & Ndyowayesu Ceasor Nagaba (Civil Suit 111 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 23 (25 January 2024)
The High Court found that the 2nd defendant breached a contract for construction materials and awarded the plaintiff UGX 70,000,000, court-rate interest, and costs.
Rwomushana v Manwagi (Civil Suit 81 of 2022) [2023] UGCommC 169 (29 October 2023)
The court found that the defendant, as administrator of the estate, did not obtain the consent of the beneficiaries before entering into the Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiff. Both case law and statutory authority require such consent for any transaction involving estate property. The absence of beneficiary consent rendered the Memorandum of Understanding unlawful and unenforceable. Consequently, all claims arising from the memorandum, including specific performance and compensation, could not be sustained. The suit was dismissed on the basis that the underlying contract was void…
Source excerpt
Sino East Africa Trade Development Company Limited & Another v Dida Investment Consult Limited (Civil Suit 320 of 2021) [2023] UGCommC 273 (20 October 2023)
The court found that the Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into binding contractual agreements through two Memoranda of Understanding and related documents, under which the Plaintiffs advanced a total of USD 60,000 to the Defendant for consultancy services. The agreements expressly provided that if the identified contractors were not awarded the relevant contracts, the Defendant would refund the advances. The evidence, including dishonored cheques issued as security, established that the Defendant failed to refund the sums after the contractors were unsuccessful, constituting a clear breach of…
Source excerpt
Muganyizi v 3 AT 1 Business Center Limited & Another (Civil Suit 776 of 2021) [2023] UGCommC 283 (28 March 2023)
The High Court found the defendants liable to pay the plaintiff UGX 78,529,000 under a memorandum of understanding, but declined general damages and interest.
Nalongo Estates Limited v Kisaka and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1923 of 2021) [2022] UGHCLD 151 (27 July 2022)
The High Court declined to punish the respondents for contempt, finding no willful disobedience because compliance depended on a survey by implementing agencies.
Ndyareeba v Arinaitwe (Miscellaneous Application No. 173 of 2019) [2022] UGCommC 2 (5 January 2022)
The court found that the applicant failed to raise any bona fide triable issue of fact or law that would justify granting leave to appear and defend the summary suit. The applicant did not unequivocally deny receiving the money or making part payment, and his defences were based on technicalities without sufficient factual disclosure. The argument that the respondent lacked legal authority to lend was dismissed as the transaction was a private arrangement, not a business of money lending. The claim of coercion in signing the memorandum of understanding was unsupported by particulars or eviden…
Source excerpt
Nalongo Estates Limited v Kampala Capital City Authority and Another (Originating Summons 5 of 2020) [2021] UGHCLD 120 (4 June 2021)
The High Court held that the parties’ MOU on the Kampala Flyover Project was binding, ordered immediate lease extension steps, and required survey and compensation for affected land.
