Visare Uganda Limited v Katerega & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 591 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 213 (22 November 2023)
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Case number
Miscellaneous Application 591 of 2023
Judge
Stephen Mubiru, J
The High Court upheld a judicial sale of immovable property, finding the consent judgment enforceable and the sale defects immaterial. The application to set aside the sale was dismissed.
Namakajo v KCB Bank Uganda Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application 523 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 108 (17 October 2023)
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Case number
Miscellaneous Application 523 of 2023
Judge
Kahigi Asiimwe, J
The court found that there is a substantial question regarding the ownership of the suit property, establishing a prima facie case in favor of the Applicant. The 2nd Respondent, whose name is on the title, did not defend the application, and the Applicant's evidence stands unchallenged. However, the court determined that any loss suffered by the Applicant could be compensated in monetary terms and is not irreparable. The balance of convenience favors the Applicant, as the property is a source of income for the Applicant's family, and the Respondent has other properties to recover the loan. Th…
Ambayo v Aserua (Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2015) [2022] UGCA 272 (15 November 2022)
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Case number
Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2015
Judge
Kibeedi Mutangula, JA, Gashirabake, JA, Musoke, JA
The Court of Appeal held that property acquired before formal marriage but used as the family home, and to which both parties contributed, can be treated as matrimonial property. However, the respondent's contributions, though both monetary and non-monetary, did not justify an equal (50%) share as previously awarded by the High Court. The appellate court found that the trial judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence, particularly regarding the respondent's capacity and actual involvement in construction and acquisition, and did not account for the appellant's substantial investment in th…
Bank of Africa Uganda Limited v Ssemaganda and Another ( T/A Holyways Hostel) (Civil Appeal No. 131 of 2021) [2022] UGCA 18 (10 February 2022)
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Case number
Civil Appeal No. 131 of 2021
Judge
Musota, J, Bamugemereire, JA, Musoke, JA
The Court of Appeal found that the appellant bank breached several statutory duties in the process of selling the mortgaged property, including failure to serve a proper demand notice, failure to give notice of sale, selling by private treaty without the respondents' consent, and selling at an undervalued price. The trial judge was justified in preferring the valuation report (Exhibit P9) that was properly admitted and unchallenged at trial, and the appellant's attempt to rely on other reports was procedurally improper. The expert handwriting evidence was cogent and unchallenged, establishing…
The Supreme Court held that the application for review was in substance a disguised appeal, seeking to overturn findings of fact and law already adjudicated at all levels of court. The grounds raised by the applicant did not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record, nor did they fall within the narrow scope for review under Rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules. The Court reaffirmed that its intention in the original judgment was to nullify the illegal sale and restore all property, including land, buildings, and machinery, to African Textile Mills Ltd (in liquidation). The applic…
Nsubuga v Young Men's Muslim Association (Civil Review No. 007 of 2020) [2020] UGHCLD 24 (28 October 2020)
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
Civil Review No. 007 of 2020
Judge
Nkonge, J
The court found that there was a manifest error on the face of the record in the naming and legal capacity of the respondent, as only the Registered Trustees of the Young Men's Muslim Association could own property or be sued, not the association itself. This error was admitted by both parties and the court. Additionally, the compensation awarded for the kibanja was not based on a proper valuation process, and new evidence (valuation report) justified a review. The court held that substantive justice required a fresh valuation by the Chief Government Valuer, with both parties present, and tha…
Kafeero-Ssentongo v Mugenyi & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 670 of 2019) [2020] UGHCEBD 6 (4 September 2020)
Court
High Court: Execution and Bailiffs Division (Uganda)
Case number
Miscellaneous Application No. 670 of 2019
Judge
Wolayo, J
The court found that the valuation of the property was conducted by Dr. Ochwo, who was not registered or licensed under the Surveyors Registration Act, and whose credentials and firm lacked sufficient certification and traceability. As a result, there was no lawful valuation in the eyes of the law, rendering the subsequent sale of Plot 213 Block 323, Nyendo, Masaka invalid. The approval of the valuation by the deputy registrar was immaterial given the lack of qualification of the valuer. Furthermore, the attempted execution against the Nalukolongo property was unlawful as no application or wa…
Mboijana v Abesigamukama (Civil Appeal No. 0014 of 2015) [2016] UGHCFD 26 (2 September 2016)
Court
HC: Family Division (Uganda)
Case number
Civil Appeal No. 0014 of 2015
Judge
Ojok, J
The High Court dismissed an appeal in a divorce and matrimonial property dispute, upholding a 7:3 division of property and each party bearing its own costs.
Uganda Petroleum Co. Ltd Vs Kampala City Council (Civil Suit No. 250 of 2005) [2015] UGHCLD 27 (20 February 2015)
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
Civil Suit No. 250 of 2005
Judge
Bashaija, J
The High Court held that Kampala City Council breached a land compensation MoU with Uganda Petroleum Co. Ltd and awarded compensation, damages, interest, and costs.
Luwero & Anor v Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Anor (Civil Suit No. 679 of 2006) [2013] UGHCLD 82 (12 November 2013)
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
Civil Suit No. 679 of 2006
Judge
Masalu, J
The plaintiffs defaulted on their mortgage obligations, entitling the 1st defendant to exercise its power of sale under the mortgage deed. The statutory notice of foreclosure was deemed properly served by registered post to the address provided in the mortgage, and the plaintiffs failed to respond. The sale of the mortgaged property to the 2nd defendant was conducted lawfully, following public advertisement and auction, and the 2nd defendant acquired good title as a bona fide purchaser for value. Allegations of fraud were not strictly proved by the plaintiffs, who bore the burden of proof. Th…
