Lawpoint Uganda

Actions for redemption of mortgaged land must be commenced within twelve (12) years from the date the cause of action accrues. The Court further clarified that limitation extinguishes not only the remedy but the right itself in actions for recovery or redemption of land.

It was held in the case of Uganda Farmers Meat Co. Limited Vs Fresh Cuts Uganda Ltd (supra) that the burden of proving that equity and good conscience does not demand a refund devolves upon the Defendant who offers such a defence to the claim of the creditor. That it is settled law that once the Plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favour, the evidential burden shifts to the Defendant to controvert the Plaintiff’s prima facie case; otherwise, judgment must be entered

To set aside a decree under Order 36 Rule 11, the Applicant must demonstrate "any other good cause." Claiming a mere oversight or a notification delay, especially when contradicted by reliable system evidence, does not meet this threshold.

“The 28 days within which the Plaintiff was supposed to take out summons for directions have since elapsed. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not comply with the mandatory provision of Order 11A, Rule 1 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.”

"The catch phrase under Section 290h-4 (a) (1) & (2) of the USADF ACT /ADF ACT U.S Code Title 22, Chapter 71, is that the African Development Foundation, as a body corporate, can sue or be sued in any court of competent jurisdiction. My understanding of this provision is that, the use of the words 'any court of competent jurisdiction' in the enactment provision which establishes the African Development Foundation is a symbolisation of an expression of lack of restriction in f

The Court reiterated that in applications for enlargement of time, the decisive consideration is whether the litigant has taken affirmative steps to correct procedural mistakes and actively pursue their rights. Courts must assess whether parties or their advocates have demonstrated diligence in curing defects. Ultimately, the Court underscored that the judicial system exists to safeguard the rule of law and prevent conflicts,especially in land matters within the Kabale circui

Revision is not a substitute for appeal or review. It targets only jurisdictional excesses or material irregularities causing "failure of justice." Mere evidentiary defects (e.g., affidavit authorization) do not suffice unless they vitiate the court's power to act. Litigants should prioritize appeals for such issues to avoid summary dismissal.

The Court emphasized that compliance with Order 11A, Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules is mandatory. The Rule stipulates that where a plaint has been filed, the plaintiff must take out summons for directions within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of the last reply or rejoinder.

 The Court faulted the trial magistrate for ignoring succession law during the locus visit, where the record (p. 18) shows counsel noting: "Bikangiso: When we went to locus, this court advised that since the defendant died, there was need to appoint an administrator to see whether the 1st defendant left properties to this estate and also to see whether this matter can be settled out of court." The Court proceeded "on an impermissible error," as "the correct law for resolution

“Mathematical precision and exactitude are not attributes of property valuation; at best, valuation is an opinion based on technical expertise and prevailing market factors.”

Once a judgment is entered, the trial court cannot revisit it except through review or appeal: “The general principle is that as soon as a judgment or order is pronounced, the court becomes functus officio.”

The Court rejected the plaintiff's narrow view that objections must be purely points of law, noting: "In short, the argument by the plaintiff, that a preliminary objection must be purely on a point of law, doesn't hold water. What would be the fate of a catch all of objections? A point of law may arise from a factual omission... A better categorization of a preliminary objection is whether it goes to the root of the cause of action or is a diversion from considering the suit

Whereas the plaintiff lacks locus standi, the same does not justify the defendant’s inability to fulfill his obligations... failure to file an inventory is a just cause for revocation... the filing of an inventory is a court order premised on the wording of the grant, the breach of which is punishable... In the premises, it is my considered opinion that just cause has been furnished to warrant the revocation of the letters of administration.”

The Court found that the Registrar acted without jurisdiction when he rescinded the Applicant’s declaration after duly declaring results. Once he declared a winner, he became functus officio. “I find that the NRM District Registrar acted illegally when he rescinded the declaration of the Applicant to declare the 2nd Respondent as NRM Constituency Flag bearer... because he did not have such powers and he was functus officio.” The Court agreed with the Kenyan Supreme Court prec

Contempt of Court may be classified as either (1) Criminal Contempt, consisting of words or acts which impede or interfere with the administration of justice, or which create a substantial risk that the course of justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced; or (2) contempt in procedure, otherwise known as civil contempt, consisting of disobedience to the judgment, orders or other process of the Court and involving a private injury..

The applicant’s reliance on WhatsApp messages to prove an alleged term that two acres of land were to be in a waterlogged area and three acres on dry land was rejected. The Court held that the messages only confirmed pricing and did not evidence any contractual obligation regarding the nature of the land. It emphasised that only terms expressly incorporated in a written contract are enforceable, and alleged oral variations or assumptions must be strictly proved. While electro

The court agreed with the Respondent that only the court issuing the order (Chief Magistrates Court of Entebbe) had jurisdiction to hear contempt proceedings, citing Florence Dawaru v. Angumale Abino & Anor and Kibeedi Hussein v. Hotel Triangle Ltd. The transfer of the lower court’s file to the High Court for Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2024 did not confer jurisdiction to the High Court to determine contempt of the lower court’s order.

The Court emphasized that, unless there is proof of a system failure or glitch, service through ECCMIS is legally valid and effective, having the same legal effect as personal or physical service.

The court distinguished between suits instituted against a deceased person (void ab initio) and those where a party dies during pendency (which may continue with proper substitution). Citing Ddamba Susan v. John W. Katende & Fredrick Ssempebwa and other precedents, the court held that a suit against a deceased person is a nullity and cannot be cured by amendment. The Notice of Motion was further defective for failing to state grounds and lacking an authorized court official’s

The High Court affirmed its unlimited original jurisdiction to entertain divorce petitions under Article 139(1) of the Constitution, even where both parties are Africans (per Section 3 of the Divorce Act), particularly to avoid procedural delays in cases potentially involving matrimonial assets exceeding UGX 50,000,000. However, the Court emphasized strict adherence to territorial jurisdiction under Section 15(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, transferring the matter to the High

The High Court affirmed the Respondent as the lawful owner of the suit land and upheld the trial court’s award of vacant possession, permanent injunction, and UGX 10,000,000 general damages.

The court held that adverse possession was not pleaded, violating Order 7 Rule 1(e) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which mandates disclosing the cause of action. The claim was introduced belatedly in submissions, constituting trial by ambush. Even on merits, the appellants failed to prove factual possession, continuous 12-year occupation, animus possidendi, or non-permissive use. The respondents’ family maintained possession, and the appellants’ use was fragmented and permissi

Article 26 guarantees the right to own and use property without interference. The court found that the caveat emptor and statutory instrument disrupted the plaintiffs’ development plans, as evidenced by stalled construction observed during the locus visit. The court defined unlawful interference as a violation of proprietary or possessory rights. The notices affected the plaintiffs’ proprietary rights by restricting their ability to deal with the land. This issue was resolved

The Supreme Court observed that Section 26(1) allows courts to vary the rate of interest if it is harsh and unconscionable but does not permit changing the type of interest (e.g., from compound to simple). The High Court erred in citing Section 26(2) and (3) but inadvertently complied with Section 26(1) by reducing the rate to 15% while preserving compound interest. The Court of Appeal erred by substituting compound interest with simple interest, as Section 26(1) limits judic