Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 03:46 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

15 Aug 2022

Commercial And Corporate [2022] UGHCCD 334

Amin v Bugerere Properties Limited & 3 Others (Company Cause 18 of 2016)

Amin v Bugerere Properties Limited & 3 Others (Company Cause 18 of 2016) [2022] UGHCCD 334 (15 August 2022)

Court: HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number: Company Cause 18 of 2016
Judge: Musa Ssekaana, J

The court found that the issues of the petitioner's shareholding and directorship in the 1st respondent company had already been determined in previous proceedings, and the principle of res judicata applied. The petitioner failed to provide satisfactory evidence of valid share allotment, payment for shares, or entry in the company register. The return of allotment presented by the petitioner was not recognized by the company or the Registrar of Companies, and there was no board resolution authorizing the allotment. Without proof of payment and registration, the petitioner could not be conside…

Source excerpt

Company Shareholding Disputes
Directorship Status
Oppression Of Minority Shareholder
Company Register Rectification

Read case analysis

24 Jun 2021

Commercial And Corporate [2021] UGHC 48

Cliff Masagazi v Afriland First Bank (U) Limited (Company Cause No. 8 of 2020)

Cliff Masagazi v Afriland First Bank (U) Limited (Company Cause No. 8 of 2020) [2021] UGHC 48 (24 June 2021)

Court: High Court of Uganda
Case number: Company Cause No. 8 of 2020
Judge: Musa Ssekaana, J

The court found that while the petition disclosed a cause of action, the petitioner failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his 15% shares were paid up, either in cash or by valid non-cash consideration. The evidence, including the annual return of allotment, was inconclusive and riddled with errors, and there was no contract or board resolution supporting non-cash payment. The court held that the respondent's actions, including calls on unpaid shares and exclusion from certain meetings, were in accordance with the Articles of Association and did not amount to oppression or unfair…