Uganda Case Law

Fastline Carriage Services Ltd & Anor Vs Crane Management Services Ltd & Anor

Fastline Carriage Services Ltd & Anor Vs Crane Management Services Ltd & Anor (Civil Suit No. 051 of 2001) [2015] UGHCCD 159 (13 November 2015)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit No. 051 of 2001

Judge

Namundi, J

The High Court found the defendants unlawfully detained the plaintiffs’ vehicles and equipment, awarded general damages, and ordered valuation of the items for replacement compensation.

• Unlawful Detention Of Property
• Landlord Tenant Disputes
• Ownership Of Chattels
• Remedies For Conversion
• Unlawful-detention-of-property
• Ownership-of-chattels

Kityo v Uganda Dairy Corporation and Another

Kityo v Uganda Dairy Corporation and Another (Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2003) [2003] UGCA 27 (25 February 2003)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2003

Judge

Mukasa-Kikonyogo, DCJ, Kitumba, JA, Byamugisha, JA

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant proved lawful ownership of the milk cooler and that the respondents failed to prove the seized cooler was stolen property.

• Conversion
• Detinue
• Ownership Of Chattels
• Sale Of Goods
• Damages Assessment
• Title To Stolen Property

Bitarabeho v Dr. Kakonge

Bitarabeho v Dr. Kakonge (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1999) [1999] UGCA 69 (25 June 1999)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1999

Judge

Berko, JA, Mpagi-Bahigeine, JA, Okello, JA

The Court of Appeal of Uganda dismissed an appeal over a vehicle dispute, upholding findings that the plaintiff could recover the car and damages for its detention.

• Detinue
• Conversion
• Ownership Of Chattels
• Damages Assessment
• Locus Standi
• Locus-standi

Xing Wang Company Limited v Zheng Zuping

Xing Wang Company Limited v Zheng Zuping (MISCELLANEOUS COMPANY CAUSE No. 0001 OF 2018) [2018] UGHCCD 31 (29 May 2018)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

MISCELLANEOUS COMPANY CAUSE No. 0001 OF 2018

Judge

Stephen Mubiru, J

The applicant failed to specify the legal basis for the application and did not provide evidence of ownership or licensing to operate the disputed slot machines. The respondent demonstrated prima facie evidence that Wangula (U) Limited is the licensed operator and in possession of the machines. The court found that granting a mandatory injunction would risk prejudging the substantive dispute and cause irremediable harm to the respondent, whose business would be disrupted without adequate remedy in damages. The balance of convenience and justice favored the respondent, as the applicant had not…

Source excerpt

• Mandatory Injunction
• Ownership Of Chattels
• Interim Orders
• Balance Of Convenience