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
Gonget v Tuhairwe & Another (Miscellaneous Application 2898 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 160 (27 May 2024)
The Commercial Court allowed an amendment to a plaint, finding it did not introduce a new cause of action and that any prejudice could be cured by costs.
Kagumaho v Ninsima (Civil Suit No. 531 of 2019) [2022] UGHCCD 140 (20 September 2022)
The High Court held that charging 20% monthly interest without a money lending licence was illegal, found no debt proved beyond the principal loan, and dismissed the counterclaim.
Kagumaho v Ninsiima (Miscellaneous Application 13 of 2020) [2020] UGHCCD 228 (2 March 2020)
The court found that the applicant established a prima facie case because the sum of UGX 78,340,200 was genuinely disputed, raising triable issues as to whether it was a friendly loan or an amount accumulated through illegal interest without a money lending license. The court held that if the injunction was not granted, the applicant risked irreparable injury, including possible arrest and enforcement actions by police, which could not be adequately compensated by damages if the main suit was ultimately decided in his favor. The court also determined that the balance of convenience favored ma…
Source excerpt
Kagumaho v Ninsiima (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICTAION NO. 13 OF 2020) [2020] UGHCCD 75 (27 February 2020)
The High Court granted a temporary injunction restraining loan enforcement pending trial, finding triable issues on the loan terms, interest, and licensing.
Galina Vs Kibuuka & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2016) [2019] UGCA 145 (11 June 2019)
The Court of Appeal found that the transaction between the appellant and the first respondent was not a straightforward sale of land but a money lending agreement, with land titles deposited as security for the loan. The appellant advanced Ug.shs. 70 million to the respondent, with an unenforceable interest of 20 percent per month. There was insufficient evidence that the alleged purchase price of Ug.shs. 120 million was ever paid for the second agreement. The appellant failed to prove payment and the agreements were structured to secure repayment of the loan, not to effect a sale. The trial…
Source excerpt
Namatovu v Kaaya & anor (Civil Suit No. 432 of 2005) [2014] UGHCLD 22 (30 April 2014)
The High Court found the land transaction was a loan, not a sale, and held that the first and second defendants fraudulently dealt with the plaintiff’s property.
