Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 05:20 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

8 Jul 2021

Civil Procedure [2021] UGHCCD 52

Kaabong District Local Government v Lokana Enterprises

Kaabong District Local Government v Lokana Enterprises (Miscellaneous Cause No. 7 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCD 52 (8 July 2021)

Court: HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number: Miscellaneous Cause No. 7 of 2021
Judge: Adonyo, J

The court found that the affidavit in reply sworn by Ilukol Gabriel was defective and illegal, as he lacked the requisite authority to act on behalf of Lokana Enterprises, a sole proprietorship owned by Loiki Peter. The court further determined that the consent judgment entered into on 20th July 2018 was vitiated by misrepresentation of material facts by the respondent, who claimed full performance of contractual obligations despite evidence of only partial completion and abandonment of the works. Applying established legal principles, the court held that a consent judgment obtained through m…

Source excerpt

Setting Aside Consent Judgment
Misrepresentation In Contract
Affidavit Capacity
Costs Award

Read case analysis

14 Oct 2017

Land And Property [2017] UGHCLD 245

Francis Paul v Namwandu Muteranwa

Francis Paul v Namwandu Muteranwa (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2014) [2017] UGHCLD 245 (14 October 2017)

Court: HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number: Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2014
Judge: Zeija, J

The appellate court found that the trial Magistrate failed to properly evaluate the evidence and wrongly concluded that the sale of the Kibanja was procured by misrepresentation. The evidence showed that the land was openly on sale, the vendor was aware of its status, and there was no inducement or fraudulent misrepresentation by the appellant. The purported rescission was invalid as it was not communicated to the appellant and the contract price was not refunded. The LC1 meeting lacked legal mandate and did not affect the validity of the sale. The respondent's occupation of the land did not…