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
Namatovu Prossy and Another v Nakiganda Ruth (Civil Revision No. 17 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 83 (1 July 2025)
The High Court revised a magistrate’s ruling for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, holding that a UGX 24 million claim exceeded the Grade One Magistrate’s limit.
Kabyanga Rogers v Mukiibi Bashir and Muwonge Abbey (Revision Cause No. 14 of 2023) [2025] UGHCLD 93 (17 June 2025)
The High Court set aside a consent judgment for exceeding a chief magistrate’s pecuniary jurisdiction and ordered the suit transferred to the Land Division.
Nakigonya Justine v Kawuma Betty (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2024) [2025] UGHCLD 87 (11 June 2025)
The High Court found that the suit Kibanja was lawfully sold to the respondent after a customary distribution of the deceased's estate, in which the appellant acquiesced by accepting a different property. The court held that customary distribution is valid and beneficiaries may deal with their allocated share without letters of administration, provided the distribution is accepted by all. The appellant, having no legal interest in the suit Kibanja, was correctly found to be a trespasser. The trial court's jurisdiction was properly based on the value pleaded in the plaint, and no evidence was…
Source excerpt
Kikafunda Alex v Ferestus Joy Bajooiyi (Civil Appeal 25 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 348 (10 April 2025)
The High Court found that both the appellant and respondent have interests in the Suitland, with the respondent having a greater share based on corroborated evidence of purchase, occupation, and family ties. The trial Magistrate erred by failing to recognize the appellant's interest in the property and by not adequately guiding the unrepresented appellant regarding his right to testify. The evidence supported that the respondent is entitled to three quarters of the Suitland, including her house, while the appellant is entitled to one quarter, including his house. The pecuniary jurisdiction ar…
Source excerpt
Kadala Haidali v Kakembo Micheal and Others (Miscellaneous Application 93 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 309 (31 March 2025)
The High Court reinstated a dismissed transfer application after finding sufficient cause for non-appearance, but dismissed the reinstated application as moot.
Kaddu Richard v Mawejje Edward and Gayiira Ausi (HCT-17-LD-MA-0266-2023) [2025] UGHC 308 (6 March 2025)
The High Court upheld the chief magistrate’s jurisdiction over a land dispute and struck out the appeal for being filed without leave of court.
Musisi v Nsubuga & Another (Civil Suit 104 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 157 (5 March 2025)
The High Court revoked letters of administration for inoperative estate management, found the plaintiff was a beneficiary, and granted him the estate letters.
Mugisha & 7 Others v Ndyahabwa (Miscellaneous Application 59 of 2020) [2025] UGHC 74 (27 February 2025)
The High Court dismissed a revision application challenging a Magistrate Grade One’s jurisdiction, holding the plaint was properly amended to state a value within limits.
Yako Bank Uganda Limited v Gidudu (Civil Revision 9 of 2023) [2025] UGCommC 35 (18 February 2025)
The High Court set aside a temporary injunction from the Chief Magistrate’s Court, holding that the underlying mortgage dispute and relief sought exceeded the court’s pecuniary jurisdiction.
Senyonga v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited & Another (Criminal Revision 4 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1103 (26 November 2024)
The High Court found that the lower court application was not about adjudication of rights over UGX 37,000,000, but rather an application for access to a bank statement. The reference to the monetary sum did not form the pecuniary basis of the subject matter, and thus the Trial Magistrate did not act outside his jurisdiction. Although there was a procedural irregularity in dismissing the application without allowing the applicant to file a rejoinder, this irregularity was immaterial because the application itself was defective. The Evidence (Bankers’ Books) Act requires either ongoing proceed…
Source excerpt
