Uganda Case Law

Kamulegeya Mugisha v Kampala Capital City Authority and Another

Kamulegeya Mugisha v Kampala Capital City Authority and Another (Civil Suit 174 of 2019) [2023] UGHCLD 371 (30 October 2023)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit 174 of 2019

Judge

Kanyange, J

The 1st defendant breached its statutory duty by failing to approve the plaintiff's building plans after receiving modified submissions and not making a decision within the statutory period, leaving the plaintiff without alternative remedies. The refusal to approve was conditioned on the plaintiff providing an additional 2.1 metres for an access road to the 2nd defendant, but the 2nd defendant failed to acquire and pay for the strip as agreed. The court found no evidence of fraud by the 2nd defendant, as his complaint was made in good faith and the omission of certain information did not amou…

Source excerpt

• Statutory Duty Breach
• Building Plan Approval
• Access Road Disputes
• Remedies And Damages

Katende v Uganda Land Commission

Katende v Uganda Land Commission (Civil Suit No.573 of 2015) [2019] UGHCLD 9 (20 March 2019)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit No.573 of 2015

Judge

Kawesa, J

The High Court held that the Uganda Land Commission fraudulently acquired the plaintiff’s land, trespassed on it, and breached statutory duties, awarding damages and compensation.

• Fraudulent Land Transfer
• Trespass To Land
• Statutory Duty Breach
• Compensation For Land
• Exemplary Damages
• Fraudulent-land-transfer

Simpson v Ruben and Another (Ruben Brothers)

Simpson v Ruben and Another (Ruben Brothers) (Civil Case No. 32 of 1943) [1943] EACA 74 (1 January 1943)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Case No. 32 of 1943

Judge

Sheridan CJ

The court found that the plaintiff, in entering and crossing the main road without giving warning or ensuring it was clear, acted negligently and in breach of statutory duty. This negligence was the substantial, if not sole, cause of the accident. Although the defendant's driver might have avoided the accident by not swerving, his actions did not amount to a failure to exercise ordinary care in the circumstances, as he was confronted with a sudden emergency created by the plaintiff's conduct. The court applied the doctrine of contributory negligence, holding that the plaintiff's own negligenc…

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Contributory Negligence
• Road Traffic Accidents
• Statutory Duty Breach