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
Wawomola v Metro Cement Limited (Civil Suit 10 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 386 (30 May 2024)
The High Court found Metro Cement Ltd partly responsible for flooding affecting the plaintiff’s land, awarded UGX 10 million general damages, and ordered drainage restoration.
Pakzad and Another v Kiwanuka and Another (Civil Suit 180 of 2015) [2023] UGHCLD 241 (9 August 2023)
The High Court found the plaintiffs were the lawful owners of the land, held the defendants were trespassers, and awarded eviction, an injunction, damages, and costs.
Gabigogo v Namwanje & 6 Others (Civil Suit 39 of 2015) [2023] UGHC 367 (5 May 2023)
The High Court at Masaka dismissed a land trespass suit as res judicata, finding the same issues had already been decided in an earlier case involving the same family estate.
Mukose v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 60 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCRD 109 (17 June 2021)
The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal challenging convictions for public-health nuisance and operating a school boarding extension without permission.
Musoke v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 60 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCRD 69 (17 June 2021)
The High Court dismissed Patrick Mukose’s criminal appeal, upholding convictions for creating a public nuisance at a school and operating an unapproved boarding section.
Mukose v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 60 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCRD 103 (17 June 2021)
The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against convictions for nuisance and operating a school boarding extension without permission, confirming the fine and orders.
Mukwasi General Contractors Ltd v Living Words Assembly Limited & 2 Ors (CIVIL SUIT NO. 230 OF 2013) [2018] UGHCCD 101 (12 December 2018)
The court found that the area in question is a mixed residential and commercial zone, and the applicable permissible noise levels are those set for general environment areas under Regulation 6(1) of the National Environment (Noise Standards and Control) Regulations, 2003: 55 decibels during the day and 45 decibels at night. The First Defendant's emission of 64.8 decibels exceeded these limits, constituting a nuisance and breach of statutory duty, and interfering with the Plaintiff's legitimate use of its property. The court held that the First Defendant must reduce and regulate its noise leve…
Source excerpt
Mukwasi General Contractors Ltd v Living Words Assembly Limited & 2 Ors (CIVIL SUIT NO. 230 OF 2013) [2018] UGHCCD 102 (12 December 2018)
The High Court set permissible noise limits for a mixed-use Kampala area and ordered a church to reduce noise to 55 decibels by day and 45 at night.
Mahera vs The Emin Pasha Ltd (CIVIL SUIT NO. 78 OF 2011) [2013] UGHCCD 169 (28 June 2013)
The court found that the Plaintiff had established persistent and excessive noise pollution and nuisance emanating from the Defendant's premises, which substantially interfered with her quiet enjoyment, rest, and privacy in a residential area. The Defendant's conduct was unreasonable and in willful disregard of the Plaintiff's rights, and statutory authorities had failed to enforce noise control regulations. However, the court declined to grant a permanent injunction at this stage, preferring to order compliance with relevant regulations and enforcement by authorities, with leave for the Plai…
Source excerpt
Senabulya Francis t/a Junior Traders Night Parking Vs Thomas Conninghum (Civil Appeal No. 19 Of 2008) (Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2008) [2010] UGHC 10 (7 February 2010)
The appellant failed to disclose a cause of action as his continued occupation and business on the disputed premises was without a valid contract or licence, and the trading licence had expired prior to eviction. The space in question was an easement appurtenant to the respondent's land, and the appellant's activities constituted trespass and nuisance, interfering with the respondent's enjoyment of his property. The issuance of a trading licence by Njeru Town Council did not confer proprietary rights, and may have been ultra vires. The appellant did not strictly prove special damages as requi…
Source excerpt
