Uganda Case Law

Mubiru v Mwanja

Mubiru v Mwanja (Miscellaneous Application 1092 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 324 (24 October 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 1092 of 2020

Judge

Boniface Wamala, J

The court found that the applicant failed to establish any grounds for setting aside the consent judgment and order. The alleged duress related to the original agreement, not the execution of the consents, and the applicant had opportunities to challenge the agreement but chose to consent. The evidence showed that the applicant freely entered into the consents in the presence of his lawyer and judicial officers, and there was no proof of unlawful or wrongful pressure amounting to duress. The claims of fraud were unsupported by evidence, and the transaction was a land sale, not a money lending…

Source excerpt

• Setting Aside Consent Judgment
• Duress In Contracts
• Fraud In Civil Procedure
• Public Policy In Contracts
• Interest On Land Transactions

Mubiru v Mwanje

Mubiru v Mwanje (Miscellaneous Application 1092 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 336 (24 October 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 1092 of 2020

Judge

Boniface Wamala, J

The court found that the applicant failed to establish any grounds for setting aside the consent judgment and order. The alleged duress and fraud were not substantiated, as the applicant voluntarily entered into the consents in the presence of his lawyer and judicial officers, and there was no evidence of unlawful or wrongful pressure. The applicant had opportunities to challenge the underlying agreement in the original suit but chose to consent. The interest rate was contractual and later reduced by consent. The claim of public policy was unsupported by evidence. The court held that the cons…

Source excerpt

• Setting Aside Consent Judgment
• Duress And Coercion
• Fraud In Contracts
• Public Policy In Contracts

In Re: Trevor Mugumu (Child) (Family Cause No. 68 of 2019)

In Re: Trevor Mugumu (Child) (Family Cause No. 68 of 2019) [2020] UGHCFD 2 (17 March 2020)

Court

HC: Family Division (Uganda)

Case number

Family Cause No. 68 of 2019

Judge

Kitariisibwa-Katunguka, J

The High Court held a land commission agreement illegal to the extent it monetized access to public compensation, found the 50% fee unconscionable, and dismissed the suit.

• Illegality Of Contract
• Unconscionable Terms
• Public Policy In Contracts
• Real Estate Brokerage
• Commission Agreements
• Illegality-of-contract

Namanya & Another v Mukalagi

Namanya & Another v Mukalagi (CIVIL SUIT NO. 237 OF 2012) [2020] UGHCCD 6 (28 February 2020)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

CIVIL SUIT NO. 237 OF 2012

Judge

Wolayo, J

The court found that the commission agreement between the Plaintiffs and Defendant was illegal on public policy grounds because it monetized access to the Uganda Land Commission's Land Fund, a public service intended to be free unless charges are specifically imposed by law. The 50% commission term was deemed unconscionable, as no reasonable landowner would agree to split the proceeds from a land sale equally with a broker, especially under circumstances where the Defendant was in a weaker bargaining position and the Plaintiffs leveraged their connections to extract an excessive commission. A…

Source excerpt

• Illegality Of Contract
• Public Policy In Contracts
• Unconscionable Terms
• Real Estate Brokerage
• Commission Agreements

Boazman and Another v Hon. Attorney General of Uganda

Boazman and Another v Hon. Attorney General of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1941) [1941] EACA 3 (1 January 1941)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1941

Judge

Francis, J (Uganda), Sheridan CJ, Webb CJ

The Court of Appeal held that under the Indian Contract Act, sections 151 and 152, a bailee's standard of care may be contractually modified, including reduction below the statutory norm, by special contract. The exclusion clause in the present case was clear and unambiguous, expressly exempting the carrier from liability for loss, including that caused by its own or its servants' negligence. The Court further held that such exclusion clauses are not void as contrary to public policy, as established by both Indian and English authorities. The appellants, having agreed to the exclusion clause…

Source excerpt

• Carriage Of Goods
• Contractual Exclusion Clauses
• Bailment Liability
• Public Policy In Contracts