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
Ronald Muzito and Another v Godfrey Kahuma and Another (Civil Suit No. 824 of 2020) [2025] UGHCLD 62 (7 May 2025)
The High Court of Uganda held that the plaintiffs proved a land-financed construction arrangement and were entitled to vacant possession of the lower part of the land.
Tibasaga & 2 Others v Kabonera (Civil Appeal 39 of 2020) [2024] UGHC 845 (29 August 2024)
The High Court allowed an appeal over a land dispute, holding that the respondent had not proved ownership or trespass and setting aside the lower court orders.
Walugembe v Dr. Mwesigye and Another (Civil Suit No. 533 of 2016) [2022] UGHCLD 138 (6 July 2022)
The court found that both the plaintiff and defendants were strangers to the original lease agreement and could not invoke its terms. The plaintiff, as mailo owner, acquired title subject to existing equitable interests, including the defendants' long-standing occupation. The defendants' occupation was protected under proprietary estoppel and the Land Act, given their continuous, peaceful, and unchallenged possession for decades. The plaintiff could not sue for trespass or recovery of land, as the cause of action accrued long before his acquisition and was barred by limitation. The court held…
Source excerpt
Katende v Kabugoand 4 Others (Civil Suit No. 364 of 2012) [2022] UGHCLD 22 (3 March 2022)
The court found that Hajji Twaha Bisase, as administrator with a valid grant at the time, had legal capacity to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. The sale was necessary to settle estate debts and was not challenged by the beneficiaries for nearly two decades, during which the plaintiff enjoyed quiet possession, developed the property, and was recognized by local authorities. The beneficiaries' failure to challenge the transaction, coupled with their acceptance of other distributions, amounted to acquiescence and proprietary estoppel, barring them from now contesting the sale. The court…
Source excerpt
Kigongo v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Application No. 551 of 2021) [2022] UGHCLD 14 (17 February 2022)
The High Court found the Commissioner, Land Registration in contempt for failing to execute a decree registering land in joint names, and ordered compliance.
Mukooza and Another v Ibulaimu Kironde and Another (Civil Suit No. 889 of 2017) [2021] UGHCLD 144 (8 September 2021)
Land recovery suit dismissed as time barred. The High Court held the claim accrued when the defendant was registered in 1974 and the fraud exception was not proved.
Etukoit and Another v Acen (Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCD 277 (6 February 2021)
The High Court found that the respondent had locus standi to sue for recovery of the suit land as she was a joint owner with her late husband, and upon his death, ownership vested in her by survivorship. The evidence from the respondent and her witnesses, including local council leaders, was consistent and credible, establishing her long-term occupation and ownership of the land. The appellants' evidence was marred by significant inconsistencies and contradictions regarding the history and apportionment of the land, undermining their credibility. The doctrine of proprietary estoppel was misap…
Source excerpt
Lukwiya v Oburo (Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2019) [2020] UGHC 120 (14 August 2020)
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, upholding the respondent's counterclaim after finding no procedural error and applying proprietary estoppel to the disputed occupation.
Wadri & 4 Others v Dranilla (CIVIL REVISION NO. 7 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 68 (29 April 2020)
The application for revision fails because the trial court acted within its jurisdiction, as the pecuniary value stated in the plaint (UGX 790,000) was well within the limits for a Magistrate Grade 1. The orders granted were declaratory and did not exceed the court's powers. The applicants' affidavits were struck out for being argumentative and prolix, leaving no competent application before the court. Issues of limitation and estoppel were not pleaded at trial and are not grounds for revision but for appeal. The High Court cannot revise orders of a Registrar, as revision jurisdiction under S…
Source excerpt
Ocen v Okot (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2013) [2019] UGHC 35 (29 August 2019)
The trial magistrate erred in applying the concepts of bona fide occupancy and adverse possession to customary land, as these are inapplicable. The respondent's initial occupation was with the appellant's father's consent, amounting to a license, not adverse possession. The trial court further erred by ordering an equal division of the land, as the law requires a determination in favour of one party. However, the respondent's long-term occupation and the conduct of both parties established a consentable boundary by acquiescence and recognition over more than twelve years. The irregularity of…
Source excerpt
