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
Nassali & 5 Others v Lukwago (Civil Suit 185 of 2022) [2024] UGHCFD 61 (8 October 2024)
The High Court held that the disputed land formed part of the late James Kiggundu’s estate and that sale proceeds had to be shared among all fourteen children.
Serufusa Mukasa and Another v Nagawa Serufusa and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1110 of 2022) [2023] UGHCLD 131 (19 May 2023)
The High Court held that the beneficiaries’ suit was time-barred, finding limitation ran from the 2000 grant of letters of administration and expired in 2012.
Sebuyira v Nakitende (Civil Appeal 24 of 2020) [2023] UGHCFD 157 (5 May 2023)
The court held that the disputed land formed part of the deceased’s estate, invalidated the grant of administration, and found the later land sales unlawful.
Filda Ejon Vs Concy Ejon (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2017) [2019] UGCA 338 (29 August 2019)
The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court’s finding that Plot 24 Awangemola Road formed part of the estate, holding the administration cause could not decide ownership before grant.
The Registered Trustees of the Anjuman Ahil-I- Sunnat Wal Jamat, Jinja v Muhammed & 4 Ors (MISC. APPLICATION NO 276 OF 2016) [2017] UGHCCD 215 (15 March 2017)
The High Court dismissed an application for stay of execution pending appeal, finding the orders below had already been substantially executed and the matter overtaken by events.
In Re: The will of Harry Edward Waits: and In Re : Mrs. Violet Odell, a Legatee Ex Parte: Arthur William Thompson and Others, as Trustees (Civil Suit No. 1006 of 1952 (O.S.)) [1955] EACA 236 (1 January 1955)
An East African Court of Appeal judgment concerning the will of Harry Edward Waits and a legatee, heard in Civil Suit No. 1006 of 1952 (O.S.).
Raper v Murton and Others (Civil Case No. 92 of 1938 O.S.) [1938] EACA 186 (1 January 1938)
On the true construction of clause 4(d) of the will, the daughters (third defendants) take as joint tenants, not tenants in common, as the context of the will does not indicate any intention to divide the property. The trust of the residuary estate and its income in favour of the second defendant is subject to the trusts of one moiety of the net annual income in favour of the first and third defendants, as declared in clause 4(d). The effect of sub-clauses (f) and (g) of clause 4 is to constitute the second defendant as sole trustee of the residuary estate upon attaining the age of twenty-fiv…
Source excerpt
In Re: Application by the Wakf Commissioners for the Kenya Protectorats under Section 12 of the Wakf Commissioners Regulations, 1900 (C.C. 46/1926 (Mombasa Registry).) [1927] EACA 47 (1 January 1927)
The court held it had no power under section 13 to recall its sanction, and that Wakf-vested property should be paid to heirs proved by reliable evidence.
Bhatia v Bank (Civil Suit No. 348 of 2001) (Civil Suit No. 348 of 2001) [2005] UGHC 1 (6 July 2005)
The court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to invoke clause 2 of the sale agreement because he failed to prove a defect in title as defined by law. The plaintiff had not exhausted all legal avenues under the Registration of Titles Act and the Succession Act to effect the transfer of title to the defendant. The court held that the plaintiff's failure to follow the correct procedures and to compel the executrix to act did not amount to a legal defect in title but rather a failure to perform contractual obligations. As such, the plaintiff was in breach of contract. The defendant, having…
Source excerpt
