Uganda Case Law

Kyamanywa & Others v Amama & Others

Kyamanywa & Others v Amama & Others (Civil Suit 4 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 287 (11 April 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 4 of 2024

Judge

Karemani Jamson K, J

The court found that the plaintiffs proved they are the rightful administrators of the estate of Hermenegeldo Kalubanga, also known as Merizeldo. The 1st defendant fraudulently obtained letters of administration by misrepresenting himself as the son of the deceased and providing false information about the deceased's residence. The subsequent transfers of the suit land to the 1st and 2nd defendants were fraudulent, as the 2nd defendant failed to conduct adequate due diligence and ignored the presence of long-standing occupants. The 3rd defendant, Post Bank Uganda Ltd, did not exercise suffici…

Source excerpt

• Fraudulent Transfer Of Title
• Letters Of Administration
• Bona Fide Purchaser
• Mortgage Due Diligence
• Permanent Injunction

Hofokam Limited v Tibagwa (suing throgh her lawful attorney kusiima)

Hofokam Limited v Tibagwa (suing throgh her lawful attorney kusiima) (Miscellaneous Application 102 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 93 (17 January 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 102 of 2024

Judge

Byaruhanga Rugyema, J

The High Court at Hoima dismissed Hofokam Ltd’s preliminary objections, finding the plaint disclosed a cause of action, was not res judicata, and was not time-barred.

• Fraudulent Acquisition Of Title
• Equitable Interest In Land
• Res Judicata
• Statute Of Limitations
• Cause Of Action
• Permanent Injunction

Juuko Lawrence Ssango v Michael Jenkins Katende and John Katende

Juuko Lawrence Ssango v Michael Jenkins Katende and John Katende (Civil Application Reference No. 1 of 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 300 (7 October 2024)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Application Reference No. 1 of 2024

Judge

Nabakooza, J

The court found that the Assistant Registrar exercised jurisdiction not vested in her by law when she entertained and determined an application for civil contempt not committed in the face of the court. The powers of the Registrar under Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules do not include the authority to grant permanent injunctions, award compensation or damages, or punish for civil contempt initiated by a litigant. Such jurisdiction is reserved for a High Court Judge. Consequently, the orders issued by the Assistant Registrar in Misc. Application No. 122 of 2023 were a nullity and have no l…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Jurisdiction Of Registrar
• Permanent Injunction
• Compensation For Eviction

Victoria Nile Plastics Limited v Li Yao Industry Limited

Victoria Nile Plastics Limited v Li Yao Industry Limited (Civil Suit 607 of 2021) [2024] UGCommC 264 (2 September 2024)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 607 of 2021

Judge

Kahigi Asiimwe, J

The Plaintiff proved ownership of a registered industrial design for plastic basins and adduced evidence showing that the Defendant manufactured and sold basins substantially similar to the protected design, with only the manufacturer's name distinguishing them. The court found that the Defendant's basins would likely deceive an ordinary observer into believing they originated from the Plaintiff, thus constituting infringement under the Industrial Property Act. The Defendant failed to appear or provide evidence of registration or authorisation. Remedies were assessed based on statutory provis…

Source excerpt

• Industrial Design Infringement
• Passing Off
• Remedies For Infringement
• Damages Assessment
• Permanent Injunction

Ssali v Walusansa

Ssali v Walusansa (Civil Suit 2676 of 2016) [2024] UGHCLD 118 (3 May 2024)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit 2676 of 2016

Judge

Nassuna Matovu, J

The court found that the plaintiff lawfully purchased and registered the suit land, excluding the defendant's kibanja interest of 100ft by 168ft (approximately 30 decimals), as evidenced by the sale agreement (PEXH 5) and corroborated by the previous owner. The defendant's occupation beyond this demarcated kibanja was not supported by credible evidence and was found to be unlawful. The court observed at the locus that the defendant and his family were utilizing a much larger portion of land, had constructed a new house, and removed traditional boundary markers. The defendant's claim to bonafi…

Source excerpt

• Trespass To Land
• Kibanja Interest
• Vacant Possession
• Permanent Injunction

Kwoba v Barasa Mariko and 3 Others

Kwoba v Barasa Mariko and 3 Others (CIVIL APPEAL NO 0013 OF 2023) [2024] UGHC 1240 (6 March 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

CIVIL APPEAL NO 0013 OF 2023

Judge

Kawesa, J

The High Court dismissed a civil appeal as incompetent because it was filed out of time without leave to extend time under section 79 of the Civil Procedure Act.

• Appeal Out Of Time
• Customary Land Ownership
• Succession Disputes
• Locus Visitation
• Permanent Injunction
• Appeal-out-of-time

Mulondo v Namara and Another

Mulondo v Namara and Another (Civil Suit 184 of 2017) [2023] UGHCLD 271 (23 August 2023)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit 184 of 2017

Judge

Cornelia Kakooza Sabiiti, J

The High Court held that the defendants unlawfully blocked the plaintiff’s access road and trespassed by encroaching on his land, awarding damages, injunction, and demolition orders.

• Trespass To Land
• Access Rights
• Easements
• Encroachment
• Damages
• Permanent Injunction

Shaban and Another v Lamba Enterprises Limited and Another

Shaban and Another v Lamba Enterprises Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 287 of 2023) [2023] UGHCCD 127 (4 May 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit No. 287 of 2023

Judge

Nakachwa, J

The court found that the Plaintiffs had proved, on a standard higher than the balance of probabilities, that the 1st Defendant was fraudulently registered as proprietor of the suit land. The 1st Plaintiff never executed any transfer forms or sale agreement in favour of the 1st Defendant, and the evidence showed that the signature on the transfer forms and the photos of the purported directors were unfamiliar to him. The Defendants failed to challenge or explain the circumstances of the transfer. The law requires strict proof of fraud, which the Plaintiffs satisfied through uncontroverted evid…

Source excerpt

• Fraudulent Transfer Of Land
• Cancellation Of Title
• Burden Of Proof
• Remedies For Fraud
• Permanent Injunction

The Registered Trustees Of Kampala Kindergarten Association v Labarnum Courts Limited and Others

The Registered Trustees Of Kampala Kindergarten Association v Labarnum Courts Limited and Others (Civil Suit No. 36 of 2008) [2023] UGHCLD 97 (27 January 2023)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit No. 36 of 2008

Judges

Zeija, PJ

The Plaintiff established a cause of action by showing its registered ownership of Plot 12 Kyaggwe Road and that the Defendants encroached on its land. The court adopted the joint surveyor's report, which conclusively determined that the 1st Defendant's land (Plot 4 Akii-Bua Close) encroached on the Plaintiff's land by approximately 16 decimals. The court found that the survey process, though delayed and complicated by the refusal of several surveyors, ultimately complied with the agreed terms of reference and was conducted under court direction. The court exercised its discretionary and inhe…

Source excerpt

• Boundary Disputes
• Land Encroachment
• Vacant Possession
• Permanent Injunction
• Survey Evidence
• Cause Of Action

Registered Trustees of Kampala Kindergarten Association v Labarnum Courts Limited and 3 Others

Registered Trustees of Kampala Kindergarten Association v Labarnum Courts Limited and 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 36 of 2008) [2023] UGHCLD 15 (27 January 2023)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit No. 36 of 2008

Judges

Zeija, PJ

The court found that the Plaintiff established a cause of action by showing ownership and possession of Plot 12 Kyaggwe Road and that the Defendants' actions adversely affected its rights through encroachment and construction of illegal structures. The court relied on the joint surveyor's report, which was adopted as conclusive evidence under section 26(2) of the Judicature Act, confirming that the 1st Defendant's land encroached on the Plaintiff's land by approximately 16 decimals. The court rejected the Defendants' procedural objections, noting that the surveyor was appointed by consent and…

Source excerpt

• Boundary Disputes
• Land Encroachment
• Vacant Possession
• Permanent Injunction
• Mesne Profits
• Survey Evidence