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
Baguma v Nilita (Miscellaneous Application No. 799 of 2022) [2022] UGHCLD 133 (2 August 2022)
The High Court dismissed a preliminary objection seeking to strike out a plaint over a Power of Attorney dispute, holding the issues required evidence and were not pure points of law.
Nantumbwe and Another (as administrators of the estate of late male) v Namazzi and 10 Others ( as administrators of the estate of late Patwe) (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 165 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 20 (20 January 2022)
The court overruled a preliminary objection, holding that the written authority and power of attorney were valid and that the application was competently before court.
Nantunbwe and Another v Namazzi and 10 Others (HC Miscellaneous Application 165 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 324 (20 January 2022)
The High Court overruled a preliminary objection, holding that a power of attorney was valid upon execution and that registration did not affect authority to swear an affidavit.
Subhi v Miskiria (Civil Appeal No. 88 of 1954) [1955] EACA 302 (1 January 1955)
The court held that the appellant had no right, title, or interest in Shamba Ndagaa because the alleged sale to his mother was never completed by registered conveyance, as required by law. Consequently, she could not legally dedicate the property as Wakf. The statutory requirement for registration under the Registration of Documents Decree and the Transfer of Property Decree excluded the application of equitable principles such as those in Walsh v. Lonsdale. The Wakf was therefore invalid, and the respondent's title, based on a court sale and long possession, was upheld. Regarding damages, th…
Source excerpt
Cushny v Kakamega Ore Reduction Co. Ltd (C.C. No. 70/1936) [1936] EACA 147 (1 January 1936)
The court held that regulation 45(4) of the Mining Regulations, 1934, does not empower a person claiming an option on a mining location to register multiple documents as a single document dealing with or affecting a mining lease, claim, or location. The regulation requires the submission of a single original document for registration, not a collection of disparate papers. Allowing the registration of multiple documents would undermine the clarity and reliability of the registration system and could lead to legal uncertainty regarding the nature and effect of the registered interest. In this c…
Source excerpt
