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: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 03:45 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

4 Jul 2025

Family And Children [2025] UGHCFD 41

Kaburura Mahad v Nakitende Edita

Kaburura Mahad v Nakitende Edita (Civil Appeal 26 of 2023) [2025] UGHCFD 41 (4 July 2025)

Court: HC: Family Division (Uganda)
Case number: Civil Appeal 26 of 2023
Judge: Keitirima, J

The appellate court found that the trial Magistrate erred in classifying property solely acquired by the appellant as matrimonial property without sufficient evidence of joint contribution by the respondent. The sale of the matrimonial home was declared null and void for lack of spousal consent, and the proceeds used to purchase other land could not be apportioned as matrimonial property. The division of the matrimonial home was adjusted to grant the appellant 60% and the respondent 40% of its value, effective after the last child completes education, reflecting the respondent's indirect cont…

Source excerpt

Matrimonial Property Distribution
Spousal Contribution
Custody Of Children
Sale Of Family Land
Division Of Assets
Consent In Property Transactions

Read case analysis

15 Nov 2022

Family And Children [2022] UGCA 272

Ambayo v Aserua

Ambayo v Aserua (Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2015) [2022] UGCA 272 (15 November 2022)

Court: Court of Appeal of Uganda
Case number: Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2015
Judge: Kibeedi Mutangula, JA, Gashirabake, JA, Musoke, JA

The Court of Appeal held that property acquired before formal marriage but used as the family home, and to which both parties contributed, can be treated as matrimonial property. However, the respondent's contributions, though both monetary and non-monetary, did not justify an equal (50%) share as previously awarded by the High Court. The appellate court found that the trial judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence, particularly regarding the respondent's capacity and actual involvement in construction and acquisition, and did not account for the appellant's substantial investment in th…