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
Nabiteko and Another v Ssenoga and Another (Civil Suit 674 of 2021) [2024] UGCommC 381 (28 August 2024)
The High Court held that the 1st plaintiff lawfully acquired the shop’s goodwill and tenancy, found the 2nd defendant was a sub-tenant, and dismissed the counterclaim.
Nabiteko & Another v Ssenoga & Another (Civil Suit 674 of 2021) [2024] UGCommC 307 (28 August 2024)
The High Court held that the 1st Plaintiff lawfully acquired the shop goodwill and tenancy, awarded UGX 983,000 on goods, and dismissed the Counterclaim.
Wakiso Mathias v Attorney General (Civil Suit 126 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 370 (22 September 2023)
The High Court found police officers wrongfully took the plaintiff’s containers, but held the Attorney General was not vicariously liable because the acts were outside police duties.
Oketha v Attorney General (CIVIL SUIT No. 0069 OF 2004) [2017] UGHCCD 135 (12 October 2017)
The High Court awarded general and exemplary damages after finding police unlawfully impounded and detained the plaintiff’s truck and the Attorney General vicariously liable.
Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Bukenya (Civil Appeal 26 of 1992) [1993] UGSC 38 (19 January 1993)
The Supreme Court of Uganda set aside an award for property value and lost income because the respondent had not properly pleaded or proved the remedies sought.
Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Issa Bukenya [1993] UGSC 14 (18 January 1993)
The Supreme Court of Uganda held that the trial court granted damages not supported by the plaint, set aside the judgment, and dismissed the claim.
Omo Simon v Amon Tomusange (Civil Suit No 201 of 2004) (Civil Suit No 201 of 2004) [2004] UGHC 3 (31 December 2004)
The court held that, although the defendant's written statement of defence was filed out of time and without leave, justice required that the defendant be allowed to defend the suit. The court cited authority that procedural errors should not automatically bar a party from being heard, especially where the defence has merit and the plaintiff can be compensated by costs. The nature of the action, the merits of the defence, and the ability to compensate the plaintiff for delay were all considered. Denying a party a hearing should be a last resort. Accordingly, the defendant was permitted to def…
Source excerpt
