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
Kume v Kirya (Civil Appeal 119 of 2019) [2024] UGHC 1107 (12 December 2024)
The High Court partly allowed a land appeal, finding neither party proved legal or equitable title, but letting the appellant remain in her home for life.
Kyamumi v Nababi (Civil Appeal 43 of 2022) [2024] UGHCLD 72 (19 March 2024)
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, upholding the finding that the disputed kibanja formed part of the deceased’s estate and that the appellant had not proved a valid sale.
Nyapa & Others v The Registered Trustees of the Archdiocese of Tororo (Civil Appeal 84 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 84 (11 March 2024)
The High Court found that the suit land had been validly donated to the Respondent church by the Appellants' ancestors in 1929 and subsequent years, and that the Appellants' claims to ownership were not supported by credible evidence. The presence of graves on the land was acknowledged, but the evidence established that these graves belonged to donors who had voluntarily given the land to the church, and the Appellants' subsequent claims were based on misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of the historical donation. The court held that the principle of nemo dat quod non habet applied, as the…
Source excerpt
Kateeba v Kabarozi (HCT-01-LD-CA 35 of 2020) [2023] UGHCLD 166 (3 May 2023)
The High Court upheld a finding that the respondent owned the disputed land, rejecting the appellant’s challenge to a sale agreement and his family-ownership claim.
Nyanzi & 2 Ors Vs Mukasa (Civil Appeal Number 55 of 2014) [2015] UGCA 79 (20 October 2015)
The Court of Appeal held that the first appellant entered the land with permission, the other appellants did not enter, and the survey did not amount to trespass.
United Cultivate Co. (U) Limited v United Properties Limited (Civil Appeal 1 of 1983) [1984] UGCA 1 (27 January 1984)
The Court of Appeal held that the registered proprietor of land, by virtue of holding a certificate of title, has legal possession and is entitled to sue for trespass even if not in actual occupation, provided the lessee has abandoned the property and is no longer in effective control. The evidence established that the lessee had abandoned the premises, and the defendants, not being put in possession by the lessee, were trespassers. The defendants could not rely on the lessee's title to justify their occupation. The Court further held that the omission of the word 'jointly' in the plaint did…
Source excerpt
