Uganda Case Law

Bukenya v Mugenyi & 2 Ors

Bukenya v Mugenyi & 2 Ors (Civil Suit No. 259 of 2010) [2014] UGHCLD 115 (18 August 2014)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit No. 259 of 2010

Judge

Luswata, J

The court found that the counter claimant, Kakooza Charles, is the registered proprietor of the suit land, having lawfully acquired it through a mortgage sale after the plaintiff defaulted on his loan obligations. The evidence presented by the counter claimant was uncontroverted, and the plaintiff failed to appear or challenge the counter claim. Under Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act, the certificate of title held by the counter claimant is conclusive evidence of ownership. The plaintiff's rights and interests in the suit land ceased upon default and subsequent sale. The counter c…

Source excerpt

• Mortgage Sale
• Registered Proprietorship
• Eviction
• Mesne Profits
• General Damages
• Burden Of Proof

Mugabi v Housing Finance Co. Ltd and Anor

Mugabi v Housing Finance Co. Ltd and Anor (Miscellaneous Application No 202 of 2004) [2004] UGHC 36 (14 December 2004)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No 202 of 2004

The High Court of Uganda dismissed an application for a preservation order over disputed property, finding the request was discretionary and insufficiently supported.

• Mortgage Sale
• Preservation Orders
• Mailo Land Ownership
• Eviction Procedure
• Preservation-orders
• Mortgage-sales

DFCU Bank Limited v Kasozi

DFCU Bank Limited v Kasozi (Civil Appeal 70 of 2001) [2003] UGCA 23 (27 June 2003)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 70 of 2001

Judge

Okello, JA, Berko, JA, Kitumba, JA

The Court of Appeal held that the contract of sale between the appellant and respondent was valid and enforceable. The appellant, who alleged illegality, bore the legal burden of proof but failed to adduce sufficient evidence that the contract was illegal or that the respondent lacked capacity to purchase the property. The prior High Court judgment (Exh P13) was not binding on the respondent, as it was not a judgment in rem and did not involve the same parties. The respondent, being an advocate with a valid practicing certificate, was not in violation of section 65 of the Advocates Act, and t…

Source excerpt

• Mortgage Sale
• Breach Of Contract
• Illegality Of Contract
• Burden Of Proof
• Advocates Act Compliance

El Maskeri v Valabhdas (C.A. 25/1934.)

El Maskeri v Valabhdas (C.A. 25/1934.) [1935] EACA 49 (1 January 1935)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

C.A. 25/1934.

Judge

Abrahamas, C.J. (Tanganyika), Sheridan, P, Webb, J

The Court of Appeal held that a mortgage decree for sale is executed by the sale itself, not by later confirmation, so the new land restriction law did not delay it.

• Execution Of Decree
• Mortgage Sale
• Alienation Of Land
• Confirmation Of Sale
• Execution-of-decree
• Mortgage-sale