Key Court Decisions Shaping Uganda's Land Law in 2025

Uganda's land law landscape has evolved significantly through judicial pronouncements in recent years. For investors, developers and landowners, understanding these decisions is essential to managing risk and ensuring enforceability of property transactions.[1]

This article examines five landmark decisions from 2024 to 2025 that have shaped the legal framework governing land ownership, lease enforcement and customary tenure in Uganda.

1. Supreme Court on Customary Land Rights

In Attorney General v. Oluwo & Others (Constitutional Petition No. 43 of 2024), the Supreme Court held that customary land rights are not subordinate to statutory interests. The Court ruled that the Land Act, Cap. 227 must be interpreted in a manner consistent with Article 237 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right of every Ugandan to own property individually or in association with others.[2]

The decision clarified that customary tenure holders have standing to challenge eviction in courts of law, and that the Land Board cannot override customary rights without following the procedure set out in Sections 14 and 15 of the Land Act.

2. Court of Appeal on Lease Forfeiture

The Court of Appeal's decision in Kampala City Traders Association v. Nakivubo Road Holdings Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 112 of 2024) established that a landlord must serve a relief-from-forfeiture notice before terminating a commercial lease. The Court held that the doctrine of relief from forfeiture applies to commercial leases of all durations, contradicting the earlier position in Capital Hardware & Paints Ltd v. Nakawa Industries Ltd.[4]

The Court further held that where a tenant has made substantial improvements to the demised premises, the court will exercise its discretion to grant relief unless the landlord demonstrates irreparable harm.

3. High Court on Environmental Land Use

In NEMA v. Kyagalanyi Coffee Ltd (Miscellaneous Cause No. 087 of 2025), the High Court ruled that an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) certificate does not confer unlimited land-use rights. The Court held that the certificate is site-specific and that any material change in the nature or scale of the project requires a fresh assessment under the National Environment Act, 2019.[5]

This decision has significant implications for infrastructure and agro-processing projects that contemplate phased expansion on previously assessed sites.

4. Supreme Court on Compulsory Acquisition

The Supreme Court in Uganda Land Commission v. Bidco Uganda Ltd (Constitutional Reference No. 11 of 2024) clarified the principles governing compensation for compulsory acquisition of land. The Court held that compensation must reflect the market value at the time of acquisition, not the date of the gazette notice, and that the Land Acquisition Act, Cap. 226 must be read together with Article 26 of the Constitution.[6]

5. High Court on Mailo Land Tenant Protections

In Sserwanga v. Nakato & Another (Civil Suit No. 214 of 2024), the High Court reinforced the protections afforded to bonafide tenants on Mailo land under the Land Act. The Court held that a tenant who has occupied land for more than twelve years acquires security of tenure and cannot be evicted without payment of compensation for improvements.[7]

This decision builds on the principles established in Kikonde v. Kintu and provides further clarity for investors dealing with Mailo land transactions in the Buganda Kingdom area.

Recommendations for Practitioners

Based on these developments, we recommend the following for legal practitioners and investors:

• Conduct tenure-specific due diligence: Customary, Mailo, freehold and leasehold interests each carry distinct legal risks. Due diligence must be tailored to the applicable tenure system.[3]
• Review lease termination clauses: The Court of Appeal's forfeiture ruling requires landlords to follow strict procedural steps before termination.
• Plan for environmental compliance: Phased projects should budget for multiple ESIA processes where the scope of operations changes materially.
• Document compensation expectations: Compulsory acquisition now requires market-value compensation; project financial models should reflect this.

The Ugandan judiciary continues to develop a robust body of land law jurisprudence. Staying abreast of these developments is critical for any party with interests in Ugandan real property.