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, 04:02 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

19 Mar 2021

Civil Procedure [2021] UGCommC 97

Harambe Stores and Construction Ltd and Anor v Twinomuriisa (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 714 of 2020)

Harambe Stores and Construction Ltd and Anor v Twinomuriisa (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 714 of 2020) [2021] UGCommC 97 (19 March 2021)

Court: Commercial Court of Uganda
Case number: H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 714 of 2020
Judge: Gaswaga, J

The court found that the applicants raised bona fide triable issues of fact, including the question of whether Harambe Stores and Construction Ltd was a party to the loan agreement, whether any guarantee was executed, and whether the respondent's claim was definite and liquidated. The applicants also raised substantial allegations of fraud and illegality regarding the transfer of land, which entitle them to an opportunity to defend the suit. Applying the principles from relevant case law, the court held that unconditional leave to appear and defend should be granted where triable issues are d…

Source excerpt

Summary Procedure
Leave To Appear And Defend
Triable Issues
Liquidated Claims
Mortgage Equity Of Redemption

Read case analysis

8 Jun 2018

Land And Property [2018] UGCA 26

Kiyaga v Segujja & Anor

Kiyaga v Segujja & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2010) [2018] UGCA 26 (8 June 2018)

Court: Court of Appeal of Uganda
Case number: Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2010
Judge: Kakuru, JA, Kiryabwire, JA, Kasule, JA

The Court of Appeal found that the interest rate charged on the loan was unconscionable and excessive, exercising its discretion under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act to reopen the transaction and substitute a fair interest rate of 20% per annum. The court held that the parties intended to create an equitable mortgage, and the right to redeem the property could not be fettered by any contractual provision. The transfer of the suit land to the second respondent was fraudulent, as it was effected while payments were still being made and the property was intended only as security. The firs…