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
Rehema Turyakira Omar v Administrator of the Estate of the Late Byoleko Epaphroditus and Others (Civil Suit No. 883 of 2016) [2025] UGHCLD 53 (6 May 2025)
The High Court ordered creation of an access road for a landlocked plot, awarded damages, and declined a permanent injunction.
Okui v Nsubuga and Another (Civil Suit 469 of 2023) [2024] UGHCLD 260 (16 October 2024)
The High Court found a fraudulent land transfer, held the 1st defendant a trespasser, and ordered cancellation of the title, damages, injunctions, and costs.
Angunia & 2 Others v Joma (Civil Appeal 18 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 969 (3 October 2024)
The High Court dismissed a land appeal after finding the sole ground too general and non-compliant with the Civil Procedure Rules.
Maria Specioza v Nambi and Another (Civil Appeal 44 of 2017) [2024] UGHCLD 57 (6 March 2024)
The appellant purchased and occupied a house on the disputed land from 1997, maintaining effective physical control and possession for over 12 years without challenge from the registered owners. Although she did not qualify as a lawful or bona fide occupant under the Land Act, her long, exclusive, and undisturbed occupation meets the requirements for adverse possession under Ugandan law. Both oral testimony and documentary evidence, together with survey reports, established that the appellant's developments are on Plots 843 and 844, not Plot 131 as initially described. The law of adverse poss…
Source excerpt
Kaggwa v Kizito Batume and 8 Others (Civil Suit 286 of 2017) [2023] UGHCLD 204 (17 July 2023)
The plaintiff proved continuous occupation and development of the suit land for over a century, qualifying as a bona fide occupant under Ugandan law. The process of conversion to freehold and subsequent registration of the 2nd to 6th defendants was fraudulent, as it deliberately disregarded the plaintiff's unregistered interest and failed to comply with statutory procedures for public hearings and boundary verification. The 7th defendant, although claiming to be a bona fide purchaser, was aware or ought to have been aware of the plaintiff's occupation, as evidenced by the sale agreement claus…
Source excerpt
Mukasa (administrator of the Estate of late Christoper Mukasa ) v Rapid Advisory Limited (High Court Civil Suit 673 of 2018) [2023] UGHCLD 188 (22 June 2023)
The High Court held that the sale and transfer of estate land were unlawful and fraudulent because the seller lacked authority when the transaction occurred.
Nantume and Another v Bachu and Another (Land Civil Suit No. 375 of 2018) [2023] UGHC 36 (2 March 2023)
The High Court found that the 1st defendant was fraudulently registered on the suit land and ordered cancellation of the title entry, damages, injunction, vacant possession, and costs.
Mukuba v Kiyimba Lubega (Miscellaneous Cause No. 107 of 2022) [2023] UGHCLD 38 (11 January 2023)
The court found that the applicant and respondent were joint tenants of the suit land, as evidenced by the certificate of title and relevant statutory provisions. The applicant demonstrated, through uncontroverted evidence, that he solely developed a portion of the land with rental units and paid all associated taxes and maintenance. The respondent's conduct, including occupying a rental unit without contributing to development or costs, and the lack of cooperation between the parties, established a course of dealing inconsistent with joint tenancy. Applying common law and equitable principle…
Source excerpt
Kafeero Ssentongo v Kizito and Another (Civil Suit 27 of 2016) [2022] UGHCLD 283 (16 December 2022)
The High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s land trespass claim and upheld the 2nd defendant’s counterclaim over a 20ft by 90ft portion of land.
Grace Wango v Jane Ssewagudde (Trading as Kazo Summit Primary School) (Civil Suit 2316 of 2016) [2022] UGHCLD 314 (10 November 2022)
The Defendant was not a trespasser on the suit land. Although the original tenancy agreement expired, the Defendant's continued occupation did not amount to trespass, as there was no evidence of adverse acts against the title of the rightful owner. The Plaintiff, having received rental payments under the 2013 agreement, is estopped from challenging its validity and cannot claim the Defendant's occupation was unlawful. The tenancy agreement of 5th March 2013 is valid and binding, and there was no breach proven. The Plaintiff failed to establish trespass or breach on the balance of probabilitie…
Source excerpt
