Muwonge v Serrunjogi and Another (Civil Suit 254 of 2021) [2024] UGHCLD 280 (14 November 2024)
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
Civil Suit 254 of 2021
Judge
Nkonge, J
The High Court found a land sale agreement void for lack of a translation certificate and absence of consent, rejected specific performance, and ordered a refund.
Kyaligamba & 3 Others v Muwonge & 2 Others (Civil Suit 52 of 2017) [2024] UGHC 311 (2 April 2024)
Court
High Court of Uganda
Case number
Civil Suit 52 of 2017
Judge
Katamba Nkwanga, J
The High Court of Uganda at Masaka dismissed a land suit over a kibanja, finding the defendants proved a valid sale and the plaintiffs failed to show fraud or trespass.
Akiding and 3 Others v Dheyongera and Another (HCT-00-LD-CS 2243 of 2016) [2023] UGHCLD 259 (22 August 2023)
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
HCT-00-LD-CS 2243 of 2016
Judge
Bernard Namanya, J
The High Court held that the disputed land was not part of the deceased’s estate, upheld the second defendant’s gift and sale to the first defendant, but ordered return of excess land.
Miza Bhakit v Bruna Ososi (Civil Appeal 6 of 2021) [2023] UGHCFD 18 (15 June 2023)
Court
HC: Family Division (Uganda)
Case number
Civil Appeal 6 of 2021
Judge
Adonyo, J
The court found that the appellant was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice because he failed to exercise due diligence in the purchase of the suit land. The evidence showed that the land was part of the estate of the late Silver Oduan Ekukuriat, administered by three joint administrators. The appellant purchased the land from only one administrator, without the consent or ratification of the other co-administrators, contrary to the legal requirement that joint administrators must act together in transactions involving estate property. The court emphasized that the standard of d…
Bintubizibu v Sekibamu (Civil Appeal 9 of 2019) [2021] UGHCLD 472 (22 July 2021)
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
Civil Appeal 9 of 2019
Judge
Ojok, J
The High Court allowed a land appeal, finding the appellant had proved occupation and earlier kibanja interest, while the respondent’s evidence on ownership and boundaries was contradictory.