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
Lubega v Nyanzi and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No.86 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 167 (5 March 2025)
The High Court held that the suit kibanja was family land, but the applicant did not need consent from the respondents to transact because none was a spouse.
Alamiga & Another v Onzima & Another (Civil Appeal 9 of 2019) [2024] UGHC 813 (29 August 2024)
The court found that the appellants failed to prove they were lawful or bona fide occupants of the suit land as defined under Section 29 of the Land Act. The evidence showed their occupation was intermittent, challenged, and not continuous or unchallenged for the requisite period. The certificate of title held by the respondents was uncontested, and the appellants did not demonstrate occupation under the repealed laws or with the consent of the registered owner. The trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence and correctly found the appellants to be trespassers. Arguments regarding limit…
Source excerpt
Namukasa and 4 Others v Haji Mulindwa(suing through Buwambakari sengabi,Nabukenya and Ssekabira) (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 213 (3 December 2021)
The High Court found that the trial Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence and correctly determined that the suit land was purchased by the Respondent, who distributed portions to his children and provided a matrimonial home to the 1st Appellant. The undistributed portion constitutes family land, jointly used by the Respondent and the 1st Appellant, and neither party may exclude the other from its use. The security of occupancy under Section 38A of the Land Act grants rights of use and occupancy but not ownership. The Appellants, having received their respective portions as gifts inter vi…
Source excerpt
Baryamureeba v Kabakonjo & 6 Others (CIVIL SUIT NO. 20 OF 2013) [2020] UGHCCD 27 (17 January 2020)
The court found that there was no legally binding marriage between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant under Ugandan law, as neither statutory nor customary requirements were satisfied. However, the evidence, including a government DNA report, established that the 2nd to 7th defendants are the biological children of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The land in dispute was determined to be family land within the meaning of Section 38A of the Land Act, as it was the ordinary residence and source of sustenance for the family, and included burial grounds and family houses. Consequently, the p…
Source excerpt
Serwadda v Kasozi & Anor (Civil Suit No. 252 of 2009) [2016] UGHCLD 75 (26 February 2016)
The High Court held that the defendants were bonafide occupants of the suit land and dismissed the plaintiff’s trespass claim with costs.
Ugafin Ltd v Kiwanuka (Miscellaneous Application No. 682 of 2014) [2015] UGHCLD 24 (17 June 2015)
The respondent failed to disclose or prove her marital status with the 1st defendant, which was a material fact necessary to establish locus standi and a cause of action under the Land Act. Her pleadings did not specify the type of marriage or attach any documentary proof, despite being challenged by the applicant and given opportunities by the court. The respondent's failure to respond to the defence and to prosecute the suit further undermined her claim. The court found that without proof of marriage, the respondent could not demonstrate any right that was violated by the applicant or the 1…
Source excerpt
Nabukenya Vs Bwogi (Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2017) [2019] UGCA 41 (15 April 2019)
The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's mother was the original purchaser and occupant of the suit land, and that fraud occurred in the registration of title by Dr. Emmanuel Lumu. However, the appellant did not discover the fraud until after her mother's death in 1998, and the suit was filed within twelve years of that discovery, thus not time-barred. The respondent's father, who purchased the land from a registered proprietor, was held to be a bona fide purchaser for value of the registered title only, but his title is subject to the right of occupancy of the appellant as legal repres…
Source excerpt
Muwanga Estates & Anor v NPART (Civil Appeal No. 13/2003) [2005] UGCA 6 (16 September 2005)
The appellate court found that there was no evidence of joint purchase of the kibanja by the respondent and her husband, and distinguished between having a right in land and having an interest in land. The latter is associated with ownership and is capable of being registered, while the former relates to use. The respondent's planting of crops did not create a legal interest in the land under the law applicable at the time (Land Reform Decree). The appellant made necessary inquiries and was introduced as the new owner by local council officials. The court held that the respondent, having sepa…
Source excerpt
