Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search

High Court of Uganda

The High Court of Uganda is the third court of record in order of hierarchy and has unlimited original jurisdiction, which means that it can try any case of any value or crime of any magnitude. Appeals from all Magistrates Courts go to the High Court. 

The High Court is headed by the Honorable Principal Judge who is responsible for the administration of the court and has supervisory powers over Magistrate's courts. 

Physical address
Plot 2, the Square Kampala
Visit website
http://www.judiciary.go.ug/data/smenu/9/High
6 judgments
Advanced search

Court registries

All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
6 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
April 1996
Ibrahim Muhamed v Lawrence Lule and Another (Civil Suit 478 of 1989) [1996] UGHC 90 (22 April 1996)
Plaintiff failed to prove fraudulent transfer; registered proprietor was a bona fide purchaser and title was protected, suit dismissed with costs.
* Land law – allegation of fraudulent transfer of registered land – strict proof of actual fraud required to impeach a registered title under the Registration of Titles Act. * Registered titles – protection of bona fide purchaser for value without notice (Registration of Titles Act ss. 145, 184, 189). * Burden of proof – higher standard where fraud is alleged; circumstantial evidence insufficient without Land Office or direct proof. * Procedure – non-service of one defendant does not prevent proceeding against another properly before court.
 22 April 1996
Ibrahim Muhamed v Lawrence Lule and Another (Civil Suit 478 of 1989) [1996] UGHC 96 (22 April 1996)
Plaintiff failed to prove fraudulent transfer; the purchaser was held a bona fide purchaser whose registered title is protected.
* Land law — Registration of Titles Act — Conclusive effect of registered certificate of title and limited exceptions for fraud; burden of strict proof of fraud. * Property — bona fide purchaser for value without notice — protection of registered title. * Civil procedure — non-service of co-defendant; proceeding against one defendant only.
 22 April 1996
Standard Chartered Bank v Grand Hotel (U) Limited (Civil Suit 81 of 1993) [1996] UGHC 94 (19 April 1996)
Court upheld originating‑summons procedure and timeliness but dismissed foreclosure for defective (unsigned) demand evidence.
Mortgage law – Foreclosure and sale – Originating summons under Order 34 (rule 7, rule 3A) and section 2 of Mortgage Decree 1974 – Procedural correctness; Limitation Act – effect of governmental appropriation on accrual and computation of limitation; Evidence – requirement for signed demand/annexures to prove sums due; Caveat removal – legality where property was under government control.
 19 April 1996
Standard Chartered Bank v Grand Hotel Uganda Limited (Civil Suit Originating Summons 81 of 1993) [1996] UGHC 54 (15 April 1996)
Originating summons appropriate for foreclosure but suit dismissed because plaintiff failed to prove a valid demand for sums due.
Mortgage foreclosure — originating summons under Order 34 — procedural adequacy; Limitation Act and interruption by Government appropriation; requirement of formal demand and admissible documentary proof; caveat removal invalid while property under Government/Custodian control.
 15 April 1996
Summer Fruits Uganda Limited and Another v Development Finance Corporation of Uganda and 2 Others (Civil Suit 1077 of 95) [1996] UGHC 52 (4 April 1996)
Court ordered a company plaintiff to furnish Shs.200,000,000 security for costs within 30 days or face strike out.
Security for costs — Order 21 r.1 Civil Procedure Rules; Companies Act — court may require company plaintiff to give security where credible evidence shows likely inability to pay defendants’ costs; quantum of security — court’s assessment of reasonableness; failure to furnish security — strike out of proceedings.
 4 April 1996
James Bemba and Another v Victoria Tea Estates Limited (Civil Suit 821 of 1991) [1996] UGHC 92 (1 April 1996)
Whether a repossession certificate issued after lease re‑entry can defeat a trespass claim and confer title.
Expropriated Properties Act – certificate of repossession – effect where lease terminated by re‑entry; Leasehold – re‑entry for non‑payment of ground rent – termination and noting on register; Trespass to land – unlawful occupation after lease determination; Remedies – injunction, eviction, compensatory damages, interest and costs.
 1 April 1996