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
M/s Schenker N.V v Uganda Revenue Authority & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 94 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 161 (5 December 2023)
The High Court ordered release of goods for re-export after finding the consignee company had been struck off the register and lacked locus standi.
Malkara v Skyrocket Agency Co. Limited & 5 Others (Civil Suit 240 of 2023; Civil Suit 305 of 2023; Civil Suit 345 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 158 (17 July 2023)
The High Court held that the plaintiff remained owner of the goods, voided the later sale for illegality, found breach by the 3rd defendant, and granted release, injunction, damages and costs.
Wen Jie v Nabimanya & Anor (Civil Suit No. 605 of 2014) [2018] UGCommC 62 (24 April 2018)
The court found that Bregah International Limited was the named consignee on the bill of lading, paid all taxes and transport costs, and was invoiced by the supplier. There was no credible evidence that Wen Jie or Amarachi General Commerce had ownership of the goods in dispute. The WhatsApp messages and other evidence presented by Wen Jie did not establish a valid arrangement for Bregah to act as a mere agent or nominee. Amarachi failed to provide any documentary proof of ownership or payment for the goods. The bill of lading, as a document of title, conferred the right to immediate possessio…
Source excerpt
Anisuma Traders Ltd v Golf Course Holdings Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 36 of 2016) [2016] UGCommC 33 (1 April 2016)
The court found that there were serious triable issues regarding ownership of the goods, the legality of distress for rent against third-party property, and the enforceability of the specialty agreement. The applicant demonstrated a prima facie case, as its goods were not shown to belong to Uchumi and were subject to wrongful distress. The court held that selling the goods before determination of ownership would irreparably harm the applicant, potentially destroying its business and reputation, and depriving the court of primary evidence. The balance of convenience favoured the applicant, as…
Source excerpt
Kisembo & Anor v Commissioner Customs (URA) (HCCS 269 of 2012) [2015] UGCommC 138 (2 October 2015)
The High Court held that the plaintiffs, not the named consignee, owned the vehicles and that URA wrongfully auctioned them to recover another person’s tax debt.
Dr.Gad Matsiko v Levi Kwirigira (HCT-05-CV-CA-0023-2003 ) (HCT-05-CV-CA-0023-2003) [2005] UGHC 107 (18 August 2005)
The appellate court found that the respondent failed to prove ownership of the iron sheets on the balance of probabilities. The documentary evidence presented did not conclusively establish that the iron sheets referenced were the same as those in dispute, nor did they show the respondent's personal interest. The award of Ushs. 4,057,500 as special damages was arbitrary, neither pleaded nor proved, contrary to established legal principles. The trial magistrate's findings regarding motive and liability were unsupported by the evidence. Consequently, the appeal succeeded, the judgment of the lo…
Source excerpt
