Namutebi v Bumba (Revision Cause 2 of 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 186 (11 July 2024)
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
Revision Cause 2 of 2024
Judge
Naluzze Aisha Batala, J
The High Court rejected a revision challenge to a magistrate’s distress-for-rent ruling, finding a clerical miscitation was properly corrected and no jurisdictional error was shown.
GM Sugar Limited v Isabirye (Miscellaneous Application 97 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 646 (3 July 2024)
Court
High Court of Uganda
Case number
Miscellaneous Application 97 of 2022
Judge
Bukirwa, J
The court found that the interim order issued by the Deputy Registrar in Miscellaneous Application No. 269 of 2019 was overtaken by events, as the respondent had already been evicted from the suit land prior to its issuance. The order was open-ended, lacking a definite time frame, which is contrary to the purpose of interim injunctions and susceptible to abuse. The applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for the order to be varied or set aside, as the status quo had changed and the respondent had not pursued the main suit. The court held that interim orders must be temporary and clearly defin…
Seeta Victory Cathedral Limited & 5 Others v Nyanzi & Another (Miscellaneous Application 938 of 2022) [2024] UGHCFD 25 (21 May 2024)
Court
HC: Family Division (Uganda)
Case number
Miscellaneous Application 938 of 2022
Judge
Nagawa, J
The High Court partly allowed a review application over execution arising from a divorce decree, protecting one applicant’s land at Namataba but leaving the rest of the decree intact.
Musoke & 2 Others v DFCU Bank Limited & 6 Others (Civil Suit 178 of 2019) [2024] UGCommC 52 (4 March 2024)
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Case number
Civil Suit 178 of 2019
Judge
Ocaya, J
The court overruled DFCU Bank Ltd’s preliminary objection, holding that successor liability and cause of action issues required evidence and could not be decided as pure points of law.
Namutebi v Bumba (Revision Cause 21 of 2023) [2024] UGHCLD 41 (21 February 2024)
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
Revision Cause 21 of 2023
Judge
Naluzze Aisha Batala, J
The High Court struck out an untimely affidavit in reply and dismissed a revision application as incompetent because the notice of motion lacked the required signature and court seal.
Twinomuriisa v Mugume (Miscellaneous Application No. 2127 of 2021) [2022] UGHCLD 96 (4 February 2022)
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
Miscellaneous Application No. 2127 of 2021
Judge
Kawesa, J
The court found that the Respondent's affidavit in reply was filed within the statutory period, overruling the preliminary objection. On the issue of service, the court held that the Applicant failed to prove non-service on the balance of probabilities, and the affidavit of service was given the benefit of the doubt. Regarding the cause of action, the court determined that the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action as the Respondent was deprived of access to the suit land, which he used as an access road, and the suit was neither frivolous nor vexatious. On security for costs, the court hel…
Nassolo and 4 Others ( executors of the estate of late Ggoloba kateregga ) v Lwandasa Ssekitoleko and another (Miscellaneous Application No. 138 of 2017) [2022] UGHCCD 24 (25 January 2022)
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number
Miscellaneous Application No. 138 of 2017
Judge
Ojok, J
The High Court allowed review of an ex-parte land judgment, finding the applicants were aggrieved persons and had shown sufficient reason for setting it aside.
Kakyomya v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 3 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 3 (17 January 2023)
Court
High Court of Uganda
Case number
Miscellaneous Cause No. 3 of 2022
Judge
Mugabo, J
The respondent failed to show cause for maintaining the caveat on the applicant's land, which was lodged in October 2009. The law requires the caveator to take steps to establish their interest with finality and to justify the continued existence of the caveat after the statutory period. In the absence of any justification or action by the respondent, and in order to meet the ends of justice, the court finds that the caveat should be removed. The applicant's proprietary rights are being unduly restricted without lawful cause, and the respondent's inaction cannot be allowed to perpetuate the e…