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
Mukamuriza v Karugaba & 2 Others (Civil Suit 554 of 2020) [2024] UGCommC 346 (31 December 2024)
The High Court dismissed a land ownership suit after finding the plaintiff failed to prove she bought the land or had any proprietary interest in it.
Mbuki v The School Management Committee of Aringa & 2 Others (Civil Suit 30 of 2013) [2024] UGHC 987 (4 October 2024)
The court found that the plaintiff's claim, as pleaded, is for recovery of land and not for conversion. The tort of conversion applies only to movable property (chattels), not to land or immovable property. The limitation period for recovery of land is twelve years from the accrual of the cause of action. The plaintiff's cause of action accrued in November 2004 when the defendants took over the school and land. The plaintiff protested the takeover in 2004 and again in 2011, and filed the suit in October 2013, which is within the twelve-year limitation period. Therefore, the suit is not time b…
Source excerpt
Kisoke and Another v Katalihwa (Civil Appeal 20 of 2021) [2024] UGHC 219 (19 April 2024)
The High Court found that the respondent failed to prove direct descent from Kadoma Kyampamba and that neither he nor his father ever used or possessed the suit land. The evidence demonstrated that the appellants and their family had occupied and developed the land for over 40 years, qualifying them as owners through adverse possession. The trial magistrate erred by relying on local council judgments that were nullified by the Chief Magistrate, and by accepting the claim of Kiiza Jeles as caretaker without sufficient evidence. The appellants did not plead bonafide occupancy, so the court coul…
Source excerpt
Atuhairwe v Namara and Another (Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2020) [2022] UGHCCD 242 (2 November 2022)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate failed to properly investigate the central issues pleaded by the parties, specifically whether the sale of the suit land by the late Rev. Kaserebe after the Grade II Magistrate's ruling was lawful and whether transactions over the land post-11th January 2002 were in contempt of court and therefore illegal. The trial court instead focused on ownership rather than the legality of the sale in light of the prior judgment and the requirement for spousal consent under Section 39 of the Land Act. The appellate court held that parties and courts are boun…
Source excerpt
Kitaka and 12 Others v Mohamood Thobani (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2021) [2021] UGHCLD 177 (23 November 2021)
The appeal was dismissed because the Appellants failed to establish their claim as customary tenants on the suit land, having not provided evidence of application or approval from prescribed authorities as required for urban customary tenancy prior to 1998. The pleadings restricted their claim to customary tenancy and did not include bonafide occupancy, thus the trial court was correct in not considering such relief. The exclusion of evidence from the 8th Appellant was proper due to his failure to file a written statement of defence, and the absence of testimony from other appellants was a re…
Source excerpt
Semalulu v Nakitto (Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2008) [2017] UGHCLD 49 (27 April 2017)
The High Court allowed a land appeal, set aside the trial judgment, and held that the respondent could not succeed on an unpleaded Kibanja claim.
Mbambu v Monday (HCT – 01 – CA – 0010 OF 2016) [2017] UGHCCD 23 (23 March 2017)
The High Court dismissed a divorce appeal as incompetent because the appellant introduced new grounds without leave and failed to file the lower court record.
Hammann Ltd & Anor v Ssali & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 449 of 2013) [2013] UGHCLD 84 (22 November 2013)
The court found that the suit was time barred as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, since the cause of action against the 1st and 2nd Defendants arose in 1976 and 1984, and the suit was filed in 2006, well outside the statutory twelve-year period. The plaint did not plead any grounds for exemption from limitation under Order 7 r.6 CPR. For the 3rd and 4th Defendants, the court held that the particulars of fraud were either missing, contradictory, or not attributable to the transferee, and thus no cause of action was disclosed. The court rejected the argument that mistakes in pleadings could…
Source excerpt
Value Market Services Ltd v City Council of Kampala (Civil Suit No. 532 of 2007) [2007] UGCommC 84 (18 October 2007)
The court overruled an objection on statutory notice, but dismissed the suit against the 2nd defendant as time-barred for failure to plead disability.
Nangunga Livestock Co-operative Society Ltd v M/s Energo Project Corporation (Civil Suit No.201 of 1993) [1994] UGHC 26 (14 July 1994)
The High Court of Uganda upheld a preliminary objection and excluded expert evidence of alleged forgery because forgery had not been pleaded in the defence.
