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
Ssozi v Mukasa and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 786 of 2022) [2023] UGHCLD 405 (31 October 2023)
The High Court dismissed an application to strike out an amended land plaint, holding that the respondents alleged a viable claim, had locus standi, and sued within time after discovering fraud.
Mubiru and Another v Semakula alias Kali Smart and Another (Civil Suit No. 1068 of 2020) [2023] UGHCLD 65 (17 March 2023)
The High Court found the defendants trespassed on the plaintiffs’ land and granted eviction, a permanent injunction, general damages, interest, and costs.
Aida Nampiima Nalongo Christine & Another V Kibirango Merikizaddeki (Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2011) [2015] UGHCLD 88 (2 June 2015)
The High Court found that the trial Magistrate erred by relying on unrecorded evidence from a purported visit to the locus in quo, which violated procedural requirements. The evidence showed that the residual land intended for the family graveyard was reduced in size due to the Plaintiff's redistribution of the inherited land, and there was no cogent evidence of destruction of graves or trespass. The 1st Appellant, as a joint owner, could not commit trespass against the family graveyard, and the 2nd Appellant acquired no better title than the vendor possessed. The claim of trespass failed, an…
Source excerpt
Madhvani Group Ltd v Simbwa & Ors (Ma No. 1160 of 2012) [2013] UGHCLD 5 (25 January 2013)
The High Court granted a temporary injunction over disputed land, holding that the respondents had not effectively challenged the applicant’s affidavit evidence.
Stanley Beinababo vs Abaho Tumushabe (Civil Appeal No 11 of 1997) [1998] UGCA 16 (26 November 1998)
The Court of Appeal of Uganda dismissed a second appeal over a land dispute, holding that payment alone did not make an oral sale enforceable and that possession could not be defeated by a stranger to the contract.
