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
Nakisirinya Betty v Bruno Sentaktuuka Serunkuuma and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2186 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 186 (20 June 2025)
The High Court granted an application for discovery, finding the requested bank, land, and mortgage documents relevant to the main suit and necessary for fair disposal.
Equity Bank Uganda Limited v Begumisa (Miscellaneous Application 144 of 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 241 (15 October 2024)
The court found that the plaint did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the applicant bank. The plaintiff's claim centered on the illegal and wrongful cancellation of title, but the pleadings failed to link the applicant to the cancellation process or demonstrate any breach of duty or right by the bank. The applicant's role as mortgagee and recipient of funds for releasing its interest was not in dispute and was conducted in accordance with the law. The plaintiff's reliance on the applicant's assurances and payment of money would only be relevant in a claim for negligence or eco…
Source excerpt
Munyangabe v Equity Bank (U) Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Application 2042 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 62 (27 March 2024)
The court held that although the application was brought under the wrong law and procedure, this was not fatal as the High Court had jurisdiction and the procedure used (notice of motion) was sufficient to support the application. The court found that the documents sought, except those relating to Busiro Block 349 Plot 308, were relevant and necessary for the determination of the main suit, as they would aid in resolving the dispute regarding the alleged lack of consent and the transaction history. The court determined that the documents were within the possession or control of the respondent…
Source excerpt
Namutebi v Ssemanda and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 430 of 2021) [2021] UGCommC 176 (13 September 2021)
The court found that while the applicant established a prima facie case with serious questions of law and fact to be tried, she failed to demonstrate that she would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted, as any loss could be adequately compensated by damages. The property in question was used for commercial purposes, and the applicant had not objected to the respondents' activities for several years. The balance of convenience favoured the respondents, particularly as the applicant already had a caveat in place to protect her interests. The objection to the respondents' af…
Source excerpt
DFCU Bank Ltd v Petua Mugala Katoko (Miscellaneous Application None of 2017) [2018] UGCommC 11 (9 May 2018)
The High Court held that DFCU Bank was not privy to the land-sale arrangement and rejected the plaint against it for not disclosing a cause of action.
Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd & 7 Ors v Uganda Revenue Authority (High Court Civil Action 170 of 2007) [2008] UGCommC 66 (4 December 2008)
The court held that valuation reports are instruments under Uganda’s Stamp Duty Act, but the applicable duty is UGX 5,000, not 1% of value.
