Mugisha and 2 Others v Kaija (Civil Appeal 56 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 923 (13 September 2024)

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT HOIMA

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 0056 OF 2022

[Appeal from the judgment and orders of H/W Kaiza Elias Abdallah, Magistrate Grade I, Kakumiro Grade I Court, Hoima Chief Magistrate's Court in Civil Suit No. 09 of 2017 delivered on the 25^th of Jan. 20221

1. ZABURONI MUGISHA 2 NIWAMANYA GOD 3. KATO MUHAMAD::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: VERSUS

KAIJA JAMES....................................

BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE BYARUHANGA JESSE RUGYEMA

TUDGMENT

Background

$\frac{a}{a}$ $\frac{b}{b}$ $a$ $\frac{b}{b}$ $a$ $\frac{b}{b}$ $a$ $b$

- The Respondent/Plaintiff sued the Appellants/Defendants for $\vert 1 \vert$ interalia, a declaration that the Respondent is the rightful owner of the suit land situate at Nyakafunjo L. C. I, Kakindo sub-county, Kakumiro District and that the Respondents are trespassers thereon. - The Respondent's case is that in 2001, he bought about 100 acres $[2]$ of land from a one Antonio Ssentongo and in 2012, sold a portion of it measuring about 10 acres to the $3^rd$ Appellant. That in 2016, the Appellants without any colour of right exceeded the 10 acres the 3^rd Appellant purchased and trespassed on about 5 acres of the Respondent's land by cultivation of eucalyptus trees and crops. - The Appellants on the other hand denied the Respondent's claims $[3]$ and contended that they are occupying the 10 acres of land the 3^rd Appellant bought from the Respondent which stretch to the wetland of which the Respondent has no right of ownership. That the 3^rd Appellant developed the wetland and carried out cultivation of crops with the knowledge of the Respondent. The $1^st$ and $2^nd$

$\mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{N}}$

Appellants were permitted to utilize the suit portion of land by the $3^rd$ Appellant.

- $[4]$ The trial magistrate on his part, upon evaluation of the evidence as adduced before him, he found that the $3^rd$ Appellant bought 10 of land from the Respondent which was demarcated by boundary marks and therefore should be restricted to the 10 acres he purchased and not beyond where the suit potion of land is located. He concluded that the suit portion of land belonged to the Respondent being part of the 100 acres he acquired from Antonio Ssentongo, since there was no evidence that it was a gazetted wetland. - Judgment was therefore entered in favour $[5]$ $of$ the Respondent/Plaintiff that the suit land belongs to the Respondent and the Appellants/Defendants were trespassers. - The Appellants were dissatisfied with the judgment and orders of $[6]$ the trial magistrate and lodged the present appeal on the following grounds of appeal: - $\mathcal{I}$ . The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact when he failed to properly scrutinize and evaluate the evidence on record thus leading him to reach a wrong decision that prejudiced the appellants. - The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact when he $2.$ failed to take into account and apply the doctrine of estoppel against the Respondent and went ahead to hold that the suit land belongs to the Respondent.

$\overline{W}$ $\overline{W}$ $\overline{W}$ $\overline{W}$

Duty of the 1^st Appellate Court.

$\sum_{\alpha} \phi_{\alpha} \phi_{\alpha} \otimes \cdots \otimes \cdots \otimes \phi_{\alpha} \otimes \cdots \otimes \phi_{\alpha} \otimes \cdots \otimes \phi_{\alpha} \otimes \cdots \otimes \phi_{\alpha} \otimes \cdots \otimes \phi_{\alpha} \otimes \cdots \otimes \phi_{\alpha}$

$\mathcal{R} \rightarrow \mathcal{R} \bigoplus_{i=1}^{N} \mathcal{L}_{i}$

$\mathcal{H}_{\mathcal{D}}=-\mathcal{Z}$

$\mathbb{R}^{\pm}$ $\mathbb{R}^{\pm}$

$\sim 10^{-12}$

$\mathcal{M} \subseteq \mathcal{H}$

$a^{\alpha}$ $a^{\beta}$ $\epsilon$

It is trite that the duty of the first appellate court as the instant $[7]$ one is to review the record of evidence for itself in order to determine whether the decision of the trial court stands without necessarily interfering with the discretion of the trial court unless satisfied that the trial court has misdirected itself and thus arrived

$\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$

at a wrong decision, Stewards of Gospel Talent Ltd Vs Onyango H. C. C. A. No. 14/200 and NIC Vs Mugenyi [1987] HCB 218.

In this case, this court shall rehear the case on appeal by $[8]$ reconsidering all evidence as adduced before the trial magistrate by giving it a fresh and exhaustive scrutiny, see also Belex Tours & Travels Ltd vs Crane Bank & Anor C. A. C. A No. 71 of 2009.

Counsel legal representation.

The Appellants were represented by Mr. Aaron Baryabanza of M/s $[9]$ Baryabanza & Co. Advocates, Hoima while the Respondent was represented by Mr. Sematiko John of Ms. Atrium Advocates, Both Counsel filed their respective submissions for Kampala. consideration in the determination of this appeal.

The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact Ground 1: $\alpha = 10^{-100}$ when he failed to properly scrutinize and evaluate the evidence on record thus leading him to reach a wrong decision that prejudiced appellants.

Preliminary point of law.

$\frac{\kappa}{2} \Big|_{\gamma} = x - x \quad , \qquad \gamma = \frac{\kappa}{2} \frac{\kappa^2}{2} \kappa \Big|_{\gamma} = \frac{\kappa}{2} \frac{\kappa^2}{2} \kappa \Big|_{\gamma} = \frac{\kappa}{2} \frac{\kappa^2}{2} \kappa \Big|_{\gamma} = \frac{\kappa}{2} \frac{\kappa^2}{2} \kappa \Big|_{\gamma} = \frac{\kappa}{2} \frac{\kappa^2}{2} \kappa \Big|_{\gamma} = \frac{\kappa}{2} \frac{\kappa^2}{2} \kappa \Big|_{\gamma} = \frac{\kappa}{2} \frac{\kappa^2}{2}$

$g^{\overline{S}}$ $s \rightarrow x \downarrow x$ $g^{\overline{S}}$ $g^{\overline{S}}$ $h \downarrow \downarrow$ $g^{\overline{S}}$ $\overline{g}$ $\overline{g}$ $\overline{g}$ $h \downarrow \overline{h}$ $\overline{g}$

[10] Counsel for the Respondent raised a preliminary point of law in his submissions to the effect that the $1^st$ ground of appeal as presented is too general and does not point out the errors of objection to the decision appealed against thus it offends the provisions of 0.43 rr 1 & 2 CPR. I do agrée. $\label{eq:1} \begin{array}{llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll$

$\mathbb{R}^{n-1} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1}$

[11] O.43 rr 1 & 2 CPR require a memorandum of appeal to set forth concisely the grounds of the objection to the decision appealed against without any argument or narrative. In Lawino Veronica & Anor vs Labonga Martha H. C. C. A. No. 061 of 2017, where the ground of the appeal was framed like the impugned ground one in the instant appeal, Mubiru J, while striking out the appeal held that properly framed grounds of appeal should specifically point out errors observed in the course of the trial including the decision,


$\hat{g}^{\frac{1}{2}} = \frac{1}{\alpha} \left( \frac{1}{\alpha} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \hat{g}^{\frac{1}{2}} = 0,$

ာ အိုက္က အေပး လုပ္ေတာ္ကိုက္ ေနာက္ပါ။ အားေျပာ ေနာက္ေတာ္ အားေျပာ ေနာက္ေတာ္ အားေျပာ ေတာ္ ေတာ္ ေတာ္ ေတာ္ ေတာ္ ေတာ္<br>ေနာက္ အားေရးက ေတာ္ ေတာ္ ေတာ္ ေတာ္ ေတာ္ ေတာ္ ေတာ္ ေတာ္

కుండిని ^అక్షాప్ అన్నా^{ర్ ఇ}ండి అన్నాయం కాన్న

$\mathbb{E} = \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E}$

which the appellant believes occasioned a miscarriage of justice. I find the present 1^st ground of appeal too general to be a ground of appeal as required by $0.43$ rr 1 & 2 CPR.

- [12] The $1^{\text{st}}$ ground of appeal is in the premises accordingly struck out for offending the provisions of 0.43 rr 1 & 2 CPR. - The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact Ground 2: when he failed to take into account and apply the doctrine of estoppel against the Respondent and went ahead to hold that the suit land belongs to the Respondent. - [13] From the record, it is not in dispute that the Respondent owned 100 acres of land which included a"Kyeya" (swamp water logged or wetland) and that out of this land, he sold 10 acres of land to the 3^rd Appellant which border the "Kyeya" at the bottom. The issue in contention is whether the Appellants are entitled to utilise as part of the 10 acres purchased by the 3^rd Appellant from the Respondent, During the trial, the trial magistrate visited locus in quo. By way of actual measurements, he found that the Appellants exceeded the 10 acres sold to the $3^{rd}$ Appellant by about 5 acres and they were in possession of the $1^{st}$ , $2^{nd}$ & $3^{rd}$ Appellants who had grown thereon eucalyptus trees, beans and maize. It was the contention of the Appellants that the $1^{st}$ & $2^{nd}$ Appellants, were permitted by the $3^{rd}$ Appellant to utilize the suit portion of land. s have been not to be the property to the party of the party of the party of the party of the party of the party of the

party of the party of the party of the party of the party of the party of the party of the party of th - [14] No evidence was adduced by the Appellants that the "Kyeya" (swampy, water logged or wetland) was a gazetted place under National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) which under Ss 2, 5 & 6 of the Uganda National Environment Act Cap. 153 is vested with the management of the environment through use and its conservation. The trial magistrate simply ruled that the $3^rd$ Appellant should only restrict himself to the 10 acres he bought. $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$

$\mathbb{R}^{n-1} \times \mathbb{C}$

$\mathcal{L}^{\infty}$

$w = \overline{X}$

$\frac{a}{a} = \cos^{-1} \frac{a}{2a}$

$\mathbb{E} = \mathbb{E} \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{E}}$

$\overline{R} = \overline{R} + \overline{R}$

$\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{$

$\overline{S}_{\parallel}$ = $\overline{\kappa}$

$\omega_{\alpha\beta} = g^{\alpha\beta}$ , $\psi_{\alpha\beta}^{(1)} = \frac{1}{2}$ , $\omega_{\alpha\beta\beta} = \frac{1}{2}g_{\beta\beta}^{(2)} + \gamma_{\beta\beta} = \frac{1}{2}$ , $\omega_{\beta\beta} = \frac{1}{2}g_{\beta\beta} = \frac{1}{2}$ , $\omega_{\beta\beta} = \frac{1}{2}g_{\beta\beta} = \frac{1}{2}g_{\beta\beta} = \frac{1}{2}g_{\beta\beta} = \frac{1}{2}g_{\beta\beta} = \frac{1}{2}g_{\beta\beta} = \frac{1}{2}$

$\label{eq:2} \begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccccccccccccc} \alpha & \beta & \alpha & \alpha & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta &$

$\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{E}} = \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal$

နယ် ၁၀ နိုင်ငံ ကိုလီ ၂၀၀၁၈

$\gamma = \gamma^{\alpha} \gamma^{\alpha} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \gamma^{\beta} \$

$\gamma_{\mu_1...\mu_2}$ = $\alpha^2$ $\beta_1^2$ $\beta_2^2$ $\beta_3^2$ $\beta_4^2$ $\beta_5^2$ $\beta_5^2$ $\beta_5^2$ $\beta_5^2$ $\beta_5^2$ $\beta_5^2$ $\beta_5^2$ $\beta_5^2$ $\beta_5^2$ $\beta_5^2$ $\beta_5^2$ $\beta_5^2$ $\beta_5^2$ $\beta_5^2$ $\beta_5^2$ $\beta_5^2$ $\beta_5^2$ $\beta_5^2$

$\eta = \overline{g}$ $\longrightarrow$ $\overline{g}$ ,

$\epsilon_{\rm B} =$

$\mathcal{R}(T) = \mathcal{R}$ (53)

- $[15]$ It is my view that as the trial magistrate found, the Appellants should restrict themselves to the 10 acres the 3^rd Appellant (from whom $1^{st}$ & $2^{nd}$ Appellants derive authority to be on the suit land), purchased from the Respondent. - [16] During cross examination, the 3^rd Appellant testifying as DW1, conceded as follows:

"The suit land does not consist part of the 10 acres that I $bought$ .....

I have no authority to use the said land only that am neighbouring it. It is a wetland and owned by government not the plaintiff". $\mathcal{A} = \mathcal{A}$

- [17] The available evidence is that this "wetland" is part of the land that the Respondent purchased from Ssentongo Antonio and it is not included in the 10 acres the Respondent sold to the 3^rd Appellant. As per the sale agreement between the Respondent and the $3^rd$ Defendant/Appellant for the sale of the 10 acres of the Respondent's land (P. Exh.1), "Kyeya" (wetland, water logged, or swamp) was indicated merely as part of the common boundary and not that the Respondent declared the "Kyekya" as being not part of his land. The doctrine of estoppel under S.114 of the Evidence Act and as enunciated in Pan African Insurance Ltd Vs International Air Transport Association H. C. C. S. No. 667 of 2003 therefore is not applicable to the Respondent in the instant case. $\mathbb{E}[\nabla V_{\alpha}]^{-1} = -\gamma^{\alpha}$ $\mathbb{E}[\nabla V_{\alpha}] \mathbb{E}[\nabla V_{\alpha}] \mathbb{E}[\nabla V_{\alpha}]$ (1) - [18] In conclusion, I find that the trial magistrate evaluated the evidence on record and reached a fair and proper just decision that the suit portion of land formed part of the Respondent's land and declared the Appellants as trespassers on the Respondent's land. As a result of the above, I find the $2^{nd}$ ground of appeal devoid of any merit, it accordingly fails. The appeal is therefore in the premises found lacking merit. $\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}$ - [19] The judgment and orders of the trial magistrate are upheld. The Appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondent. $\mathbb{R}^2 \times \mathbb{R}^2$ $\begin{array}{c}\n\mathbb{R} \longrightarrow \\ \mathbb{R} \downarrow\n\end{array}$

$\sim$ m m $\sim$

$\begin{array}{c} \text{SBS} \\ \text{thus} \end{array} \qquad \qquad \begin{array}{c} \text{SBS} \\ \text{SBS} \end{array}$

$\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$

$\alpha$ $\alpha$ $\beta$ $\alpha$

$\mathbb{H} = \mathbb{Q} \qquad \mathbb{H}$

$\alpha = \frac{2}{3} \alpha$ at $\frac{2}{3}$ $\frac{2}{3} \alpha_{\alpha} = 0$

$\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$

$\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}$

$\mathbf{m}^{(i)}$ $\mathbf{m}^{(i)}$ $\mathbf{m}^{(i)}$

$\tau_{\infty} = \frac{1}{\tau} \frac{1}{\tau_{\infty}} \frac{1}{\tau_{\infty}} \frac{1}{\tau_{\infty}} \frac{1}{\tau_{\infty}} \frac{1}{\tau_{\infty}}$

$\mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{L}} = \mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{L}} \oplus \mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{L}} \oplus \mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{L}} \oplus \mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{L}} \oplus \mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{L}} \oplus \mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{L}} \oplus \mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{L}}$

Dated at Hoima this 13^th day of September, 2024.

$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$

$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{P}}$

Byaruhanga Jesse Rugyema JUDGE

$\lambda^{k-1} = -k^{-1}$ $\lambda^{k-1} = k^{-1}k^{-1}k^{-1}$ $k = 0$ and $k = 0$ . (3.2.16) $\frac{2q}{2^n} \cdot \frac{1}{q} \cdot \frac{1}{1 - 2q} \cdot \frac{1}{2q} \cdot \frac{1}{1 - 2q} \cdot \frac{1}{1 - 2q} \cdot \frac{1}{1 - 2q} \cdot \frac{1}{1 - 2q} \cdot \frac{1}{1 - 2q} \cdot \frac{1}{1 - 2q} \cdot \frac{1}{1 - 2q} \cdot \frac{1}{1 - 2q} \cdot \frac{1}{1 - 2q} \cdot \frac{1}{1 - 2q} \cdot \frac{1}{1 - 2q} \cdot \frac{1}{1 - 2q} \cdot \frac{1}{1 - 2q} \cdot \frac{1}{1 -$