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
Magolo & Another v The Howe Christian Charitable Trust Limited & Others (Civil Suit 1 of 2021) [2025] UGHC 408 (10 June 2025)
The High Court held that the suit land was unlawfully transferred to the 2nd Defendant, but rejected the Plaintiffs’ ownership claims over the school and vehicles.
Kateregga Nuhu and Others v Kasaga Abdul and Another (Civil Suit No. 237 of 2021) [2025] UGHCLD 63 (6 May 2025)
The court held that land in Busiro Block 268 Plot 473 belonged to the grandchildren of the late Nuliat Tegwa, found the 2nd defendant’s purchase void, and ordered eviction and damages.
Mivule and 2 Others v Ndawula and Another (Miscellaneous Application 1130 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 125 (23 March 2022)
The High Court held that land dedicated as a family burial ground was not liable to attachment in execution, and ordered it released from attachment.
Basudde Matovu and Ors v Tibyasa Matovu and Ors (Civil Appeal No. 186 of 2012) [2021] UGCA 122 (11 February 2021)
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision that the amended plaint did not disclose any cause of action against the respondents. The prior litigation between the parties over the same property rendered the matter res judicata, barring re-litigation. The appellants failed to establish any proprietary or beneficial interest in the suit property, which was acquired and registered by the first respondent after separation from the first appellant. The claim of family land was unsupported by law, as the property was not occupied or agreed upon as family land, and the concept did not exist…
Source excerpt
Mugenze v Mugenze & Ors (Civil Suit No. 166 of 1992) [2014] UGHCLD 20 (16 April 2014)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove any monetary contribution to the acquisition of the suit properties to the required standard, and there was no evidence of joint ownership or creation of a trust or beneficial interest in her favour. The properties were acquired and registered solely in the name of the first defendant, who had legal authority to sell them. However, the court found that the removal of the plaintiff’s caveat and the registration of the second defendant as proprietor were tainted by fraud, as the prescribed legal process for removal of caveats under the Registra…
Source excerpt
Batulumayo v Angurya (HCT-04-CV-CA-0016/1999) [2005] UGHCLD 1 (1 June 2005)
The appeal was dismissed because the Chief Magistrate did not improperly admit fresh evidence; the judgment in question was part of the trial record. The doctrine of res judicata did not apply as the parties and subject matter differed between the prior and present suits. The Limitation Act did not bar the respondent's claim because the appellant's possession was rendered illegal by the 1970 judgment, and he could not rely on limitation to perpetuate an illegality. The Chief Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence, and the appellant was or ought to have been aware of the respondent's right…
Source excerpt
