Uganda
Sign in
Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
3 court collections
Last checked

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Tort Law [2020] UGCA 104

Nangiro & Anor v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Ltd

Nangiro & Anor v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2013) [2020] UGCA 104 (14 October 2020)

The Court of Appeal upheld dismissal of a fire-damage claim, finding the appellants did not prove negligence by the electricity distributor and res ipsa loquitor did not apply.

  • Negligence
  • Res Ipsa Loquitor
  • Burden Of Proof
  • Duty Of Care
  • Res-ipsa-loquitor
  • Burden-of-proof
Read case analysis
Tort Law [2012] UGHCCD 301

Nangiro and Another v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited

Nangiro and Another v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited (Civil Suit No. 489 of 2004) [2012] UGHCCD 301 (5 October 2012)

The High Court dismissed a negligence claim arising from a house fire after an electricity reconnection, finding the cause of the fire was uncertain.

  • Negligence
  • Res Ipsa Loquitor
  • Causation
  • Burden Of Proof
  • Res-ipsa-loquitur
  • Burden-of-proof
Read case analysis
Tort Law [2008] UGHC 102

Komakech Geofrey v Umeme Ltd

Komakech Geofrey v Umeme Ltd (Civil Suit No.13 Of 2006) (Civil Suit No.13 of 2006) [2008] UGHC 102 (5 September 2008)

The High Court of Uganda found Umeme negligent after a faulty transformer allegedly caused a fire that destroyed the plaintiff’s home and property.

  • Negligence
  • Res Ipsa Loquitor
  • Damages Assessment
  • Duty Of Care
  • Electricity Supply Liability
  • Res-ipsa-loquitur
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2003] UGHC 65

Kebirungi v M/s Road Trainers Ltd & Ors

Kebirungi v M/s Road Trainers Ltd & Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 285 of 2003) [2003] UGHC 65 (1 September 2003)

The court held that the plaint, both in its original and proposed amended form, failed to disclose a cause of action because it did not provide sufficient particulars of negligence as required by law. The mere assertion of 'driving recklessly without due regard to other road users' is inadequate and does not amount to particulars of negligence. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor does not substitute the requirement to plead particulars of negligence. The court further held that the objection based on non-compliance with Rule 8 of the First Schedule to the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act…

  • Pleadings
  • Amendment Of Pleadings
  • Particulars Of Negligence
  • Cause Of Action
  • Res Ipsa Loquitor
Read case analysis

About this JurisAssist collection

Uganda decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.