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
Kisinde v Sil Investment Limited and 3 Others (Civil Suit 749 of 2016) [2024] UGHCLD 116 (18 April 2024)
The High Court dismissed a land dispute, finding the plaintiff failed to prove redemption of the mortgaged property or fraud in the issuance and sale of the title.
Muhairwe Katorogo and Another v Grofin SGB (U) Limited and Another (Civil Miscellaneous Application 534 of 2021) [2021] UGCommC 180 (25 October 2021)
The High Court dismissed a review application, holding that the alleged new evidence and claims of service defects did not meet the threshold for review.
Savio Ojok Awany v Oyet Michael (Civil Appeal No. 078 of 2013) [2019] UGCA 2118 (4 July 2019)
The appeal was withdrawn by consent. The parties agreed to settle a land dispute involving mortgage redemption, title transfer, compensation, and vacant possession.
Sajjabi v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd & 2 Ors (Civil Suit No. 269 of 2014) [2016] UGCommC 211 (19 December 2016)
The High Court held that Stanbic Bank lawfully released the title on the face of valid letters of administration, but was negligent after the plaintiff resurfaced.
Mayirikiti General Agency Ltd & Anor v Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Anor (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 469 of 2015) [2015] UGCommC 151 (10 November 2015)
The High Court reviewed its earlier costs order, finding it had wrongly awarded costs to the First Respondent despite the Applicants succeeding on the merits.
Habre International Uganda Limited v Dabo Kalilou (Civil Suit No. 739 of 2006) [2011] UGHCLD 2 (17 March 2011)
The court found that the defendant purchased the suit land from the plaintiff company through its director, Hussein Abdalla, who had ostensible authority to transact on behalf of the company. The change of company name did not affect the company's legal identity or its ability to transfer property. The transaction was not tainted with fraud, as the defendant acted in good faith and relied on the representations and actions of the company's authorised director. Any under-declaration of the purchase price was attributed to the lawyers, not the defendant, and there was no evidence of fraudulent…
Source excerpt
