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
5 judgments
Advanced search

Court registries

All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
5 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
May 1996
Busiro Coffee Farmers and Dealers Ltd v Kayongo and Others (Civil Suit 532 of 1992) [1996] UGHC 56 (31 May 1996)
Failure to prove and particularise fraud protects the applicant’s registered title; respondents liable for trespass, eviction and mesne profits.
Land law – Re-entry and determination of lease – Effect of registration under the Registration of Titles Act; Registered proprietor presumed owner unless fraud strictly proved; Pleading requirements – particulars of fraud under Order 6 r.2; Possession – continued occupation after determination amounts to trespass; Remedies – declaration, eviction, mesne profits and interest; Special damages require strict proof.
 31 May 1996
Busiro Coffee Farmers and Dealers Ltd v Tom Kayongo and Others (Civil Suit 532 of 1992) [1996] UGHC 89 (31 May 1996)
Registered proprietor affirmed; defendants held trespassers; mesne profits and eviction awarded.
Land law – Re-entry and determination of lease – effect of re-entry on lessee’s interest; Registration – protection of bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration under the Registration of Titles Act; Pleading – requirement to plead particulars of fraud; Possession – continuing occupation after determination of lease amounts to trespass; Remedies – award of mesne profits and interest; Counter-claim – special damages must be strictly proved.
 31 May 1996
Mukisa Foods Ltd v National Enterprises Corporation (Civil Suit 746 of 1992) [1996] UGHC 93 (29 May 1996)
Six months' notice for repossessed commercial premises; removal of machinery held detinue/conversion, award for return or Ugs.350m and damages.
Property law – Repossession of commercial premises – Reasonable notice period (six months) for tenants to vacate; unlawful holding over. Tort – Detinue and conversion – removal of machinery by outgoing tenant/occupier; remedies include return of chattels or payment in lieu. Evidence – court may accept credible witness valuation where documentary proof lacking; expert valuer not always required. Damages – refusal to award mesne profits where insufficient evidence to assess fair rent.
 29 May 1996
In The Matter of an Application for Order of Certiorari and Prohibition by Mustapha Ramathan v Honourable Minister of Finance and Economic Planning (Miscellaneous Application 230 of 1996) [1996] UGHC 106 (21 May 1996)
Application for leave to seek certiorari/prohibition dismissed as time‑barred and misdirected where statutory remedies existed.
Judicature Act s.34(6) — mandatory six‑month limit for leave to apply for prerogative orders; Expropriated Properties Act — appeal as statutory remedy; Registration of Titles Act — rectification remedy; prerogative writs (certiorari, prohibition) — appropriateness and timing; prohibition is preventive not corrective.
 21 May 1996
In The matter Of Application For an Order Of Certiorari and or Prohibition By Mustapha (Miscellaneous Application 230 of 1996) [1996] UGHC 68 (21 May 1996)
Leave for certiorari/prohibition refused as statutory time limits and alternative remedies preclude prerogative relief.
Judicature Act s.34(6) — six-month time limit for leave to apply for prerogative orders; Expropriated Properties Act — statutory appeal as primary remedy; Registration of Titles Act s.185 — correction of register remedy; Prerogative writs (certiorari/prohibition) inappropriate where statutory remedies exist or act is complete; Registrar acted on repossession certificate, not discretionary decision; Prohibition is preventive and unsuitable after completion of the impugned act.
 21 May 1996