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
Mpaire v Finance TrustBank Ltd (HCT-05-CV-MA 179 of 2021) [2024] UGHC 779 (28 August 2024)
The High Court refused to restrain sale of mortgaged property pending appeal, holding the applicant had not shown a basis to bar the bank’s statutory power of sale.
Ulego & Ors v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 138 of 2004) [2013] UGHCCD 144 (31 October 2013)
High Court dismissed a challenge to a suit over frozen bank accounts, holding it was time-barred, lacked a valid cause of action, and failed on locus standi and statutory notice.
Nuwamanya v Mugyenyi & Anor (Hct-05-cv-cs-047-2008) [2010] UGHC 191 (25 March 2010)
The court held that the suit was not res judicata because the previous suit (C.S. 375/98) was dismissed for non-attendance and not on the merits, thus not finally decided as required by section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the court found that the suit was barred by limitation, as the cause of action arose in 1992 when the first defendant obtained title to the land, and the suit was filed in 2008, exceeding the 12-year limitation period under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff failed to plead any exception to limitation as required by Order 7 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedur…
Source excerpt
Kampala City Council v Value Market Services Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 8 of 2007) [2007] UGCommC 18 (22 February 2007)
The court found that the City Council and the City Division Council are distinct legal entities, each capable of being sued in its own name. The statutory notice in question was addressed to the Central Division, but the suit was brought against the City Council of Kampala. The amendment sought by the applicant is intended to clarify whether the correct party was sued and whether the statutory notice was properly served. The court held that allowing the amendment would enable the real issues between the parties to be adjudicated and would likely avoid multiplicity of suits. There was no evide…
Source excerpt
Nakirya and Another v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 38 of 2003) [2006] UGCA 58 (8 September 2006)
The Court of Appeal held that police unlawfully confiscated the deceased’s goods, rejected reliance on a statutory-notice technicality, and allowed the appeal with costs.
Nakirya Ssekataba & Anor Vs Attorney general (Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2003) [2006] UGCA 45 (8 September 2006)
The Court of Appeal held that parties are bound by their pleadings and rejected a late statutory notice objection, allowing the appeal with costs.
Chimanlal Bhailalbhai Patel v Attorney General (Civil Suit No.105 of 2002) [2004] UGHC 7 (12 February 2004)
The High Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation and damages for expropriated property sold to a third party, and awarded UGX 700 million plus damages.
Musisi v Kampala City Council (Civil Suit 60 of 1993) [1994] UGHC 46 (18 November 1994)
The High Court allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint to correct the defendant’s name, finding the mistake genuine and not misleading.
Haji Ssalongo v Kasese Town Council and Another (Civil Suit 13 of 91) [1994] UGHC 43 (28 July 1994)
The High Court dismissed an informal application for leave to appeal because it was brought verbally instead of by motion on notice as required by the Civil Procedure Rules.
Zzizinga and Another v Uganda Commercial Bank (Civil Suit 3 of 1990) [1992] UGHCCD 113 (24 January 1992)
The court held that the action by the first plaintiff, George Zizzinga, was time-barred as it was filed more than 12 months after the cause of action arose, contrary to section 2(1)(d) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1969. The statutory notice served within the limitation period did not extend the time for filing suit, as statutory notice is not part of court proceedings. However, the minor plaintiffs, suing through their next friend, were entitled to the disability exemption under section 4 of the same Act, allowing them to file suit within 12 months aft…
Source excerpt
