Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 02:51 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

15 Oct 2024

Civil Procedure [2024] UGHCLD 241

Equity Bank Uganda Limited v Begumisa

Equity Bank Uganda Limited v Begumisa (Miscellaneous Application 144 of 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 241 (15 October 2024)

Court: HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number: Miscellaneous Application 144 of 2024
Judge: Naluzze Aisha Batala, J

The court found that the plaint did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the applicant bank. The plaintiff's claim centered on the illegal and wrongful cancellation of title, but the pleadings failed to link the applicant to the cancellation process or demonstrate any breach of duty or right by the bank. The applicant's role as mortgagee and recipient of funds for releasing its interest was not in dispute and was conducted in accordance with the law. The plaintiff's reliance on the applicant's assurances and payment of money would only be relevant in a claim for negligence or eco…

Source excerpt

Cause Of Action
Privity Of Contract
Mortgage Transactions
Pleadings Striking Out
Title Cancellation

Read case analysis

6 Feb 2020

Civil Procedure [2020] EACJ 27

Kiwanuka v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Consolidated Applications 4 of 2019; Consolidated Applications 6 of 2019)

Kiwanuka v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Consolidated Applications 4 of 2019; Consolidated Applications 6 of 2019) [2020] EACJ 27 (6 February 2020) (First Instance Division)

Court: East African Court of Justice
Case number: Consolidated Applications 4 of 2019 ; Consolidated Applications 6 of 2019
Judge: Mugenyi PJ, Ntezilyayo DPJ, Nyachae JA, Nyawello JA

The court found that while the Answer to the Reference was served out of time, Rule 4 of the EACJ Rules empowers the court to enlarge time for sufficient reason. The Attorney General established sufficient reason for the late service through uncontroverted affidavit evidence. The court held that the designation of the pleading as 'Answer' instead of 'Response' was a procedural lapse that did not warrant striking out the document, as substance prevails over form. The Affidavit in Reply, though not expressly provided for in the Rules, was not filed out of time since no time frame is prescribed…