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
Kato Benson v Kalema Mike (Civil Suit No. 103 of 2020) [2025] UGHCCD 69 (13 June 2025)
The High Court found the defendant liable for a road accident causing the plaintiff serious injury and leg amputation, awarding proved special damages, general damages, interest, and costs.
Ssebuliaba Joseph v Absa Bank Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 981 of 2023) [2025] UGCommC 141 (5 June 2025)
High Court of Uganda held that a bank breached its duty by incomplete KYC checks, but the plaintiff failed to prove causation, fraud, or entitlement to USD 25,000.
G.K.O Security Company Limited v NCBA Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 865 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 107 (31 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application for a temporary injunction over loan and mortgage enforcement, finding no irreparable harm and that damages would suffice.
Nkizimana Sula and Others v Sserwadda John Mary (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 558 (21 May 2025)
The appeal succeeded because the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof that the cattle which destroyed his crops belonged to the appellants. The trial magistrate erroneously relied on photographs that were not tendered as evidence and failed to ascertain distinguishing features of the cattle to establish ownership. The oral evidence presented did not sufficiently identify the appellants' cattle as the culprits, and the evidence of a third party, Kakande, was not properly considered. The trial magistrate also improperly adduced her own evidence in judgment. Consequently, the appel…
Source excerpt
Mukhaye & Another v Kinyajui & 2 Others (Civil Suit 47 of 2021) [2025] UGHC 299 (19 May 2025)
The High Court of Uganda held the first defendant negligent in a fatal road accident and found the second defendant vicariously liable, awarding damages and costs.
Namukose v JPMAB Ltd (Civil Suit 47 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 183 (16 April 2025)
The High Court found the defendant’s driver negligent in a road traffic collision, held the defendant vicariously liable, and awarded damages, interest, and costs.
Rugira Salim v Jakobu Enterprises Ltd (Civil Suit 2 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 358 (10 April 2025)
The court determined that the plaintiff's claim for personal injuries resulting from negligence is time-barred under Section 3(1)(d) of the Limitation Act, as it was filed more than three years after the cause of action arose. However, the claim for loss of income and damages to the motor vehicle, which arises from negligence but does not include personal injuries, falls under Section 3(1)(a) and is subject to a six-year limitation period. Since the suit was filed within six years, this claim survives. The court, applying the principle of severance, rejected the time-barred personal injury cl…
Source excerpt
Abacus Parenteral Drugs Limited v Stanbic Bank (U) Limited (Civil Suit 322 of 2022) [2025] UGCommC 58 (9 April 2025)
The court found the bank breached its online-banking contract, but held the plaintiff 80% contributorily negligent for weak internal controls. The plaintiff recovered UGX 339,556,644.
Turinawe v Uganda Revenue Authority & Another (Civil Suit 121 of 2021) [2025] UGHCCD 39 (26 February 2025)
The High Court dismissed a claim for negligence and conversion over missing container goods, finding the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged quantity or wrongful interference.
Desanje & Another v V.G Keshwala & Sons Limited (Civil Suit 113 of 2020) [2025] UGHCCD 34 (26 February 2025)
The court found that the defendant's truck driver owed the deceased a duty of care and breached that duty by driving too close to the deceased, resulting in his death. The defendant's admission of negligence and the insurance company's payment further supported liability. The court determined that the insurance company failed to comply with the Illiterates Protection Act when obtaining the discharge from the plaintiffs, who were illiterate and did not understand the documents they signed. Consequently, the discharge was invalid, and the insurance company remained liable. The plaintiffs were e…
Source excerpt
