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
Jogoo v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 014/2018) [2025] AfCHPR 20 (26 June 2025)
The African Court held that the application was inadmissible because the applicant failed to exhaust local remedies in Tanzania, despite the Court finding it had jurisdiction.
R.L Jain Limited v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2024) [2025] UGHCACD 7 (11 April 2025)
The High Court set aside an anti-corruption restraint order over mortgaged land, finding the applicant had a valid prior registered mortgage and was not complicit.
Execellent Assorted Manufacturers Limted v National Environment Management Authority (Miscellaneous Application 666 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 7 (16 January 2025)
The High Court granted a temporary injunction preserving the status quo over a wetland-related environmental restoration order pending judicial review.
Katungye v Reynolds Construction Co. Limited (Civil Suit 205 of 2011) [2024] UGHCCD 120 (7 June 2024)
The High Court held that admitted excavation of rock powder from the plaintiff’s land was trespass, awarded general damages and limited special damages, and declined punitive damages.
Bunjo v Bank of Africa Uganda Limited & 3 Others (Constitutional Petition 23 of 2018) [2024] UGCC 19 (23 May 2024)
The Constitutional Court held that Regulation 13 of the Mortgage Regulations S.I No. 2 of 2012 does not contravene Articles 44(c), 26(1), 31(1), or 139(1) of the Constitution. The requirement to deposit 30% of the forced sale value or outstanding loan arises only at the stage when a party seeks to stop or adjourn a sale of mortgaged property, not as a precondition to accessing court. The regulation is intended to balance the rights of mortgagees and mortgagors, prevent abuse of interlocutory relief, and is subject to court discretion, especially regarding spouses. The court found that propert…
Source excerpt
The Registered Trustees of Shree Sanatan Dharma Mandai v Kampala Capital City Authority (Miscellaneous Application 115 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCD 80 (17 May 2024)
The High Court denied a temporary injunction sought to stop KCCA from implementing resolutions affecting Bat Valley Primary School and the underlying property.
Human Rights Network For Journalists Ltd and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 25 of 2018) [2023] UGCC 97 (17 March 2023)
The Constitutional Court found that the challenged provisions of the Uganda Communications Act, 2013 do not violate the constitutional rights to freedom of the press, property, equality, or fair administrative treatment. The Minister's oversight of the Uganda Communications Commission and related bodies is aimed at ensuring accountability and efficiency, and does not amount to unconstitutional interference. Licensing requirements for disposal of radio communications apparatus, while constituting a limitation on property rights, are reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic society.…
Source excerpt
Agama and Another v Okwakol and 11 Others (Land Civil Suit No. 15 of 2017) [2022] UGHC 103 (17 August 2022)
The court found that the defendants, as local leaders, were fully aware of a subsisting Court of Appeal order permitting the plaintiffs to occupy and cultivate 85 acres of the disputed land. Despite this, the defendants mobilized the community, held meetings that incited violence, and directly or indirectly caused the destruction of the plaintiffs' property, including crops and houses. The evidence, including witness testimony, documentary exhibits, and media reports, was uncontroverted due to the defendants' absence at trial. The court held that the defendants' actions amounted to unlawful i…
Source excerpt
Mahok v Attorney General of the Republic South Sudan (Reference No.19 of 2018) [2022] EACJ 11 (24 June 2022) (First Instance Division)
The Court held that it had jurisdiction ratione temporis to hear the Reference, as the impugned actions (failure to release Mr Wol and closure of his bank accounts) occurred after the signing of the Revitalised Agreement and the Republican Order, and the Reference was filed within two months of these events. However, the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that Mr Wol was a political detainee entitled to release under the relevant agreements, or that the Respondent's actions violated domestic law and the Treaty. The only affidavit presented was hearsay and did not meet th…
Source excerpt
Rugo Farm Company v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (Reference No.14 of 2018) [2022] EACJ 3 (7 April 2022) (First Instance Division)
The East African Court of Justice has jurisdiction to determine the legality of Partner State actions alleged to infringe the Treaty, even if arising from domestic court decisions, provided the Reference challenges Treaty compliance. The Reference was filed within the prescribed two-month period after notification of the impugned decision. The contract for the sale of land by Ruzizi Company to the Applicant was legal, supported by government authorization and registration, and not contradicted by evidence from the Respondent. The Special Court of Lands and Other Assets violated Article 230(3)…
Source excerpt
