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
Ssanyu v Bukorwe (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal 3 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 321 (9 February 2023)
The High Court partly allowed an appeal over interim land orders, holding that the Deputy Registrar erred in restricting the applicant’s use while purporting to preserve status quo.
Ayebale v Namanda and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1780 of 2022) [2023] UGHCLD 18 (6 February 2023)
The High Court refused to vary an interim restraining order to allow construction of a retaining wall, holding that the request would alter the status quo.
Byehondozo v The Attorney General of Uganda and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 83 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 265 (5 August 2021)
The High Court refused to vary a temporary injunction, finding no sufficient cause and no proof that the respondents breached the order or that it was vague.
Sekyonda v Tumusiime (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1344 of 2020) [2020] UGHCLD 36 (15 December 2020)
The High Court refused to vary a temporary injunction, holding it preserved rather than altered the status quo over disputed access to land.
Jjumba Vs Javiira Sebiitosi (Misc.Application No. 671 of 2019) [2019] UGHCLD 49 (29 August 2019)
The High Court varied a temporary injunction so both parties would maintain the status quo over the disputed kibanja pending final determination of the suit.
Ashwan & Anor v Daliph Singh (MISC. APPLICATION NO.1101 OF 2015) [2016] UGHCCD 148 (27 January 2016)
The court found that the applicants voluntarily entered into a consent order to deposit their passports in court to prevent travel out of jurisdiction until the main suit is concluded. No new grounds or circumstances were presented to justify varying or setting aside the consent order. The applicants lack property within jurisdiction and have not demonstrated sufficient security or intention to return if allowed to travel. Milkha Singh's undertaking does not extinguish the respondent's liability to the bank or adequately secure the respondent's interests. The principles governing consent orde…
Source excerpt
Namunyala & Anor v Kibisi (HCT-04-CR-CR-0001-2012) [2012] UGHC 19 (16 February 2012)
High Court revision on a consent injunction: the court held that the trial magistrate could not vary the order ex parte and vacated the later order.
East African General Co. v East African General Insurance Company and others (Civil Application 2 of 2002) [2002] UGSC 49 (27 March 2002)
The Supreme Court held that a single judge had no jurisdiction to vary a consent judgment previously approved by another single judge and dismissed the application with costs.
East African General Insurance Co. Ltd v East African General Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors (Civil Application 2 of 2002) [2002] UGSC 16 (26 March 2002)
The Supreme Court of Uganda held that a single justice lacked jurisdiction to vary a consent judgment and dismissed the application with costs.
Singh v Singh (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1954) [1955] EACA 295 (1 January 1955)
The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa dismissed an application to appeal out of time, holding that late joinder would unfairly prejudice the respondent after the earlier appeal had been decided.
