Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 02:55 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

12 Sept 2022

Land And Property [2022] UGHC 156

Peter Wakhatenge and Another v National Water and Sewerage Corporation

Peter Wakhatenge and Another v National Water and Sewerage Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 0033 of 2014) [2022] UGHC 156 (12 September 2022)

Court: High Court of Uganda
Case number: Civil Appeal No. 0033 of 2014
Judge: Okalany, J

The High Court found that the trial magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to properly evaluate the evidence and by relying on documents not admitted as exhibits. The appellants established through coherent and unchallenged evidence that they and their ancestors customarily owned and occupied the suit land prior to the enactment of the Public Land Act 1969, and the respondent failed to prove its title or lawful acquisition. The respondent's entry and survey of the land without the appellants' consent constituted trespass. The respondent did not adduce sufficient documentary proof of owne…

Source excerpt

Customary Land Tenure
Urban Land Rights
Trespass To Land
Burden Of Proof
Pleadings And Particulars

Read case analysis

23 Nov 2021

Land And Property [2021] UGHCLD 177

Kitaka and 12 Others v Mohamood Thobani

Kitaka and 12 Others v Mohamood Thobani (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2021) [2021] UGHCLD 177 (23 November 2021)

Court: HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number: Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2021
Judge: Kawesa, J

The appeal was dismissed because the Appellants failed to establish their claim as customary tenants on the suit land, having not provided evidence of application or approval from prescribed authorities as required for urban customary tenancy prior to 1998. The pleadings restricted their claim to customary tenancy and did not include bonafide occupancy, thus the trial court was correct in not considering such relief. The exclusion of evidence from the 8th Appellant was proper due to his failure to file a written statement of defence, and the absence of testimony from other appellants was a re…