Uganda Case Law

Kalanzi Katabazi and 2 Others v Kadoma and Another

Kalanzi Katabazi and 2 Others v Kadoma and Another [2023] UGSC 31 (12 September 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Judge

Mwondha, JSC, Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, JSC, Christopher Madrama Izama, JSC, Stephen Musota, JSC

The Supreme Court held that the appellants did not plead the existence of a footpath as an easement in their written statement of defence or counterclaim. The case before the lower courts was founded on the existence of an access road under the Access to Roads Act, not on a common law easement. The procedure for creating an access road under the Act was not followed, rendering any such road unlawful. The attempt to raise the issue of a footpath as an easement for the first time on second appeal was impermissible, as it was not supported by the pleadings and would deprive the respondents of a…

Source excerpt

• Trespass To Land
• Easements
• Private Nuisance
• Access To Roads Act
• Pleadings And Issues
• Damages Award

Kasingye v Kasingye

Kasingye v Kasingye (Civil Appeal No. 096 of 2014) [2019] UGHCFD 3 (14 January 2019)

Court

HC: Family Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 096 of 2014

Judge

Luswata, J

The High Court held that the trial magistrate wrongly granted divorce where the parties had pleaded judicial separation, and set aside the termination order.

• Judicial Separation
• Divorce Proceedings
• Custody Of Children
• Matrimonial Property
• Standard Of Proof
• Pleadings And Issues

Kasingye Vs Kasingye

Kasingye Vs Kasingye (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 096 OF 2014) [2019] UGHCCD 108 (14 January 2019)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 096 OF 2014

Judge

Luswata, J

The High Court found that the trial magistrate erred in granting a divorce when both parties only sought judicial separation in their pleadings and evidence. The magistrate improperly adopted issues raised in submissions rather than those framed at the scheduling conference, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The evidence presented, particularly regarding cruelty and adultery, was not sufficiently corroborated to meet the higher standard of proof required under the Divorce Act. The DNA evidence proving the appellant was not the biological father of the youngest child was not given due wei…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Separation
• Divorce Proceedings
• Custody Of Children
• Matrimonial Property
• Standard Of Proof
• Pleadings And Issues

Twinomugisha v Uganda Alluminium Limited

Twinomugisha v Uganda Alluminium Limited (Civil Appeal 19 of 2001) [2002] UGSC 44 (24 April 2002)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 19 of 2001

Judge

Odoki, CJ, J.W.N.Tsekooko, JSC, Karokora, JSC, Mulenga, JSC, Kanyeihamba, JSC

The Supreme Court found that the pleadings and evidence did not establish a cause of action for defamation, harassment, or violation of constitutional rights. The respondent's actions in reporting the matter to police and demanding payment for goods supplied were lawful and justified, given the appellant's admitted signatures on the dishonoured cheques and the absence of evidence of malice or falsehood. The framing of issues by the Court of Appeal was proper, focusing on whether the claim and counterclaim were proved. The appellant could not be held liable for the counterclaim based on the bl…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Harassment
• Abuse Of Process
• Pleadings And Issues
• Counterclaim Liability

Manibhai Devidas Patel v Waduwa and Another

Manibhai Devidas Patel v Waduwa and Another (Civil Appeal 7 of 1998) [1998] UGCA 33 (1 December 1998)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 7 of 1998

Judge

Mayindo, DCJ, Twinomujuni, JA, Kitumba, JA

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant’s commission claim was premature because payment depended on completion of the sale, which had not occurred.

• Contract Enforcement
• Commission Agreements
• Pleadings And Issues
• Counterclaims
• Contract-law
• Property-sale

Interfreight Forwarders(U) Limited v EastAfrican Development Bank

Interfreight Forwarders(U) Limited v EastAfrican Development Bank (Civil Appeal 33 of 1992) [1993] UGSC 16 (2 July 1993)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 33 of 1992

The Supreme Court of Uganda allowed the appeal, holding that negligence was not proved and that common-carrier liability was neither pleaded nor established.

• Negligence In Transportation
• Pleadings And Issues
• Common Carrier Liability
• Assessment Of Damages
• Interest On Judgment
• Contractual Exclusion Of Liability