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
Mukasa & Another v Mukasa & Another (Civil Suit 264 of 2022) [2025] UGHCFD 11 (24 March 2025)
The High Court ordered equal sharing of UGX 600 million sale proceeds among four estate beneficiaries, finding a family agreement overrode the Will for the residue.
Byaruhanga v Byabakama (Civil Appeal 67 of 2017) [2023] UGHCLD 330 (18 August 2023)
High Court civil appeal over estate land and limitation. The court held the respondent’s claim was not time barred, found the appellant was a caretaker, and dismissed the appeal.
Ayebare and 4 Others v Kyomuhendo and 3 Others (Civil Appeal 40 of 2023) [2023] UGHCLD 354 (28 July 2023)
The High Court allowed a land appeal, held that unexhibited purchase agreements could not support the respondents’ claim, and upheld the appellants’ beneficiary rights under the deceased’s will.
Ayebare and 4 Others v Kyomuhendo and 3 Others (Civil Appeal 40 of 2023) [2023] UGHCLD 341 (28 July 2023)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate erred in law and fact by relying on alleged purchase agreements that were neither pleaded nor tendered in evidence, thus violating the rules of documentary evidence and pleadings. The court determined that there was no credible evidence of purchase or distribution of the suit land by the 4th respondent, and the inconsistencies in witness testimony further undermined the respondents' claims. The WILL of the late Rufunda James, admitted as evidence, clearly bequeathed the suit land to the appellants for cultivation, and there was no suggestion of f…
Source excerpt
Kabugo and 3 Others v Jjumba and Others (Miscellaneous Application 546 of 2023) [2023] UGHCLD 181 (30 June 2023)
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any legal interest in the suit property. The will of the late Ssezi Musoke specifically bequeathed the property to Fred Kafeero, and provided that if a legatee died leaving a child, the property would not revert to the estate but would pass to the child. The codicil relied upon by the applicants was declared invalid in prior litigation, and there was no appeal against that judgment. The property was distributed in accordance with the will, and the applicants, as siblings of Fred Kafeero, could only claim the property if he died without…
Source excerpt
Kiwalabye and 4 Others v Magoba and Another (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2018) [2021] UGHCCD 232 (24 May 2021)
The High Court upheld a decision finding that a kibanja had been bequeathed to the first respondent, validating his sale to the second respondent and dismissing the appeal.
Kutambaki Augustine v Byaruhanga Paul (Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2012) [2019] UGCA 2125 (25 September 2019)
Second appeal over a retrial request after an imperfect locus in quo record. The Court held no miscarriage of justice occurred and dismissed the appeal.
Kaweesa v Administrator General and 2 Others (Civil Suit 918 of 1993) [2012] UGHCFD 2 (19 June 2012)
The court found that the plaintiff, Paulo Kaweesa, was the lawful customary heir of Yowana Sserwanga Muyunga, as confirmed by the Kabaka and documented in the Will and clan leaders' report. His purported removal by clan leaders and family members was illegal, contrary to Buganda customary law and the Succession Act. The Administrator General lacked authority to administer or redistribute the suit property, as his powers under S.I. 150 of 1967 were limited to issuing certificates of succession for estates already administered before 18th August, 1967. The cancellation of the plaintiff's certif…
Source excerpt
Administrator general & Ors v Nabbosa & Anor (Civil Suit No. 486 of 1991) [1992] UGHCFD 1 (21 July 1992)
Ex parte, the High Court cancelled succession and title documents obtained contrary to a will and restored land to the deceased’s children.
Dhirani and others v Ganji (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1946) [1946] EACA 16 (1 January 1946)
The Court held that under Mahommedan law, specifically the Ibathi school, revocation of a bequest requires clear evidence of intention to revoke, either express or implied. The acts performed by the testatrix—planting trees, digging a well, repairing buildings—were all consistent with the ordinary maintenance and efficient management of a clove and coconut plantation and did not amount to a 'severe alteration' or a change in the nature of the subject of the bequest. The Court found no evidence, either singly or collectively, that these acts demonstrated an intention to revoke the bequest. The…
Source excerpt
