Download

Uganda Judgment

High Court of Uganda

Ouma v Zimula & 2 Others (Civil Suit 88 of 2020) [2024] UGHC 228 (12 April 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the distribution of the estate of the Late Golomba Rose was not in issue as it had not been challenged by the beneficiaries. The Plaintiff failed to prove that the 2nd Defendant acted fraudulently in purchasing the suit land, as there was no evidence that the 2nd Defendant had knowledge of the seller's lack of title or interest. The agreement in question was witnessed by a beneficiary and local authorities, further weakening the claim of fraud. Regarding trespass, the Plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proof to show that the 3rd Defendant unlawfully entered the land. As the Plaintiff failed to prove his case on a balance of probabilities, he was not entitled to the remedies sought. The suit was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Court disposition

suit dismissed

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed with no order as to costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Ouma Nicholas Augustine

Plaintiff Counsel: Arthur Ayorekire

Daudi Zimula Musiitwa

Defendant

Sembuya Twaha

Defendant

Sentuwa John Baptist

Defendant

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Suit / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Plaintiff argued that the estate of the Late Golomba Rose was never lawfully distributed among the beneficiaries, that any sale or distribution without letters of administration was null and void, and that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants unlawfully acquired and trespassed on the suit land. The Plaintiff sought declarations, a permanent injunction, handover of land title, general damages, and costs.
Respondent
The Defendants did not file any defence or submissions. The suit proceeded ex-parte, and the Plaintiff's evidence was uncontested.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    David Sejjaaka vs Rebecca Musoke, SCCA No. 12 of 1985

    Fraud must be attributable to the transferee, either directly or by necessary implication.

  2. 02

    Zabwe Fredrick v Orient Bank & Others SCCA No. 4 of 2006; Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Domanico (U) Ltd SCCA No.22 of 1992; Western Uganda Importers and Distributers Ltd v Muhasa Ivan Mpondi, Civil Suit No. 0014 of 2014

    Fraud is an intentional perversion of truth to induce another to part with property or surrender a legal right.

  3. 03

    Justine E. M. N Lutaaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Co. SCCA No. 11 of 2002; Sheikh Mohammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd C.A No. 4 of 1987

    For one to succeed in an action for trespass, it must be proved that the disputed land belonged to the plaintiff and that the defendant entered without consent.

  4. 04

    General civil procedure principles

    The burden of proof in civil cases is on a balance of probabilities.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the distribution of the estate of the Late Golomba Rose was not in issue as it had not been challenged by the beneficiaries. The Plaintiff failed to prove that the 2nd Defendant acted fraudulently in purchasing the suit land, as there was no evidence that the 2nd Defendant had knowledge of the seller's lack of title or interest. The agreement in question was witnessed by a beneficiary and local authorities, further weakening the claim of fraud. Regarding trespass, the Plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proof to show that the 3rd Defendant unlawfully entered the land. As the Plaintiff failed to prove his case on a balance of probabilities, he was not entitled to the remedies sought. The suit was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Obiter and limits

  • The distribution of the estate was never in issue and should not have been raised as a central question.
  • The presence of local council authorities and a beneficiary as witnesses to the land sale agreement undermined the claim of fraud.
  • The Plaintiff's evidence was uncontested, but the burden of proof still rested on him to establish his claims.

Court disposition

suit dismissed

  • The suit is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Source and reliance status

High Court of Uganda

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

High Court of Uganda

Judgment

[2024] UGHC 228

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT MUKONO

CIVIL SUIT NO. 88 OF 2020

OUMA NICHOLAS AUGUSTINE ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

VERSUS

1. DAUDI ZIMULA MUSIITWA

2. SEMBUYA TWAHA

3. SENTUWA JOHN BAPTIST :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

BEFORE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DAVID MATOVU

JUDGEMENT

Introduction

- 1. Ouma Nicholas Augustine hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 88 of 2020 against daudi Zimula Musiitwa, Sembuya Twaha and Sentuwa John Baptist hereinafter referred to as the Defendants. - 2. The Plaintiff' claim against the Defendants jointly and severally is for: - a) A declaration that the Estate of the Late Golomba Rose has never been shared and/ or divided among the deceased's beneficiaries lawfully - b) A declaration that any sharing, selling or distribution of the Late Golomba Rose's estate is null and void because no had had applied for and/ or obtained letters of administration to the said estate

- c) A declaration that any document, agreement $or$ undertaking of any kind that the Defendants forced and / or coerced any beneficiaries to sign, endorse or ordain regarding the sharing, selling or distribution of the Estate of the Late Golomba Rose are null and void - d) A declaration that the 3nd defendant fraudulently purchased the suit land comprised in Block 83 Plot 556 measuring approximately 0.8100 hectares located at Kasayi, Kyaggwe, Mukono District - e) An order for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants and/ or persons acting on their behalf from building, further constructing, advertising, offering for sale, selling and/ or transferring any interest or otherwise dealing with and in land comprised in Block 83 Plot 556 measuring approximately 0.8100 hectares located at Kasayi- Kyaggwe, Mukono District - f) An order that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant hands over signed transfer forms and land title of the suit land comprised in Block 83 Plot 556 measuring approximately 0.8100 hectares located at Kasayi-Kyaggwe, Mukono District - g) General damages, and - h) Costs of this suit

Background

- 3. The background of this suit is that the Late Golomba Rose, a grandmother to the Plaintiff died intestate in 1997. - 4. That she owned a kibanja measuring approximately 12 acres and it was situate on Block 83 Plot 556 located at Kasayi-Kyaggwe, Mukono District. - 5. That the said Kibanja was on land belonging to two landlords; that is 09 acres on the land of Yozefu Musiitwa and 03 acres on the land of a one Mangeni. - 6. That before the death of the Late Golomba Rose, she had distributed the said land amongst her three children to wit Nanyonjo Florence - 03 acres, Wabwire Alex -06 acres and Sabina Nabwire- 03 acres. - 7. That the said distribution was never challenged by any of the said beneficiaries up until the time of their demise. - 8. That the said beneficiaries all had children who were entitled to their respective shares. - 9. That Nanyonjo Florence sold her 03 acres to the children of the landlord, Mangeni. - That the children of the Late Sabina Nabwire took possession $10$ of their mother's estate and are in possession to date. - 11. That the Plaintiff also took possession of the land belonging to his Late father Alex Wabwire. - That the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant together with Nanyonjo Margaret, $12.$ before her demise, approached the Plaintiff with a view of buying off the said land, however the Plaintiff declined.

- $13.$ That sometime, the Late Yozefu Musiitwa also engaged the Late Nanyonjo Florence and they agreed to demarcate off 04 acres of land belonging to Alex Wabwire and give them to the landlord and in return, they would be given a title for the remaining 02 acres. - 14. That indeed the said process commenced, however both parties died before the same was completed and the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant instead obtained the title in his name as administrator to the Late Yozefu Musiitwa - 15. That the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant refused to hand over the said title to the plaintiff or any other beneficiary to the Estate of the Late Alex Wabwire - 16. That further, around May 2014, the Late Margaret Nabwire, a daughter to the late Sabina Nabwire and Cousin to the Plaintiff also purported to sell a portion of the suit land to the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant - 17. That the Defendants started sub dividing the suit land, selling it to various people and also constructing thereon. - 18. The Plaintiff avers that these acts by the Defendants are aimed at depriving him of his interest in the said land, for which judgement ought to be entered in his favour.

Legal representation

19. At the hearing of this suit, Mr. Arthur Ayorekire represented the Plaintiff

Evidence of the Plaintiff

- 20. The Plaintiff led evidence of 03 (three) witnesses through witness statements, which was uncontested. - 21. Ouma Nicholas Augustine (the Plaintiff) as PW1, Musoke Godfrey as PW2 and Denis Kabanda as PW3.

Evidence of the Defendants

22. This suit proceeded ex-parte against the Defendants since they did not file their respective defences despite being effectively served.

Issues for determination

- 23. Counsel for the Plaintiff raised 04 (four) issues for determination - Whether the distribution of the Estate of the Late Golomba $\dot{1}.$ Rose was valid? - Whether the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant fraudulently purchased the suit ii. land comprised in Block 83 Plot 556 located at Kasayi-Kyaggwe, Mukono District? - Whether the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant trespassed on the suit land iii comprised in Block 83 Plot 556 located at Kasayi-Kyaggwe, Mukono District? - Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought? iv.

Submissions

24. The Plaintiff addressed this Court by way of written submissions which this Court has carefully read and considered while arriving at its decision.

Decision of Court

25. This Court will also proceed and resolve the issues as proposed and submitted by Counsel, in the same order.

Issue one

Whether the distribution of the Estate of the Late Golomba Rose was valid?

- 26. It was submitted for the Plaintiff that the Late Golomba Rose was a kibanja owner on land comprised in Block 83 Plot 556 land located at Kasayi-Kyaggwe, Mukono District. She owned approximately 12 acres and her interest was located on the land of two landlords namely Yozefu Musiitwa, on whose land she owned 09 acres and the Late Mangeni on whose land she owned $03$ acres. - 27. It was further submitted that before her death, she had distributed her estate to her children to wit Nanyonjo Florence who received 03 acres, Wabwire Alex who received 09 acres and Safina Nabwire who received 03 acres. - 28. This distribution was never challenged by any of the biological children of the Late Golomba up until the time they all passed on.

This Court finds that the distribution of the Estate of the Late 29. Golomba Rose was never in issue at all and as such this issue ought not to have been raised.

Issue two

Whether the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant fraudulently purchased the suit land comprised in Block 83 Plot 556 located at Kasayi- Kyaggwe, Mukono District?

- "Fraud" was well defined as an intentional perversion of truth $30.$ to induce another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations or by concealment of that which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. See Zabwe Fredrick versus Orient Bank & Others SCCA No. 4 of 2006, Kampala Bottlers Ltd versus Domanico (U) Ltd SCCA No.22 of 1992 and Western Uganda Importers and Distributers Ltd V Muhasa Ivan Mpondi, Kasese District Land Board and Commissioner for Land Registration Civil Suit No. 0014 of 2014. - 31. In the instant case, it was the evidence of both PW1 and PW2 that the late Nabwire Margaret purported to enter into a land sale agreement with the $2^{nd}$ Defendant on the 17<sup>th</sup> day of May, 2014, well knowing that she had no interest in the land and that that land belonged to the beneficiaries of the Late Alex Wabwire. The Plaintiff relied on Pexh6.

- 32. Upon careful reading of PExh6, it is seen that the said agreement is not dated, and that the Late Nabwire Margaret, who was a child to the Late Sabina Nabwire purported to sell a plot of land measuring approximately 02 acres which she claimed she had received as her share in the Estate of the Late Golomba Rose. - 33. This Court agrees with the Plaintiff to the end that the Late Nabwire Margaret was only entitled to share in the Estate of the Late Sabina Nabwire, her mother and not that of the Late Golomba Rose as she was not a beneficiary thereof. - 34. As such, the Late Nabwire acted fraudulently in selling land well knowing that she neither had an interest therein neither did it belong to her. - 35. As regards to whether the said fraud can be attributed to the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant, it was stated in David Sejjaaka vs Rebecca Musoke, SCCA No. 12 of 1985, wherein it was held that fraud must be attributable to the transferee, either directly or by necessary implication. - 36. Although the Plaintiff claims that the $2^{nd}$ defendant had notice and knowledge of the seller's lack of title and interest in the said land, the Plaintiff has failed to attribute any fraud onto the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant - It can be argued that the Late Nabwire Margaret sold the said $37.$ land from the parcel (03) acres that belonged to her mother. - 38. Further, the said agreement, PExh 6, was witnessed by Nanyomjo Florence, a beneficiary to the Estate of the Late

Rose, who is presumed to Golomba have been very knowledgeable regarding the affairs of the land in question.

- 39. The said agreement also shows that the Local Council authorities were present while the said transaction was being done - 40. In light of all the above, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to prove any fraud as perpetrated by the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant. - 41. For reasons whereof, this issue is answered in the negative.

Issue three

Whether the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant trespassed on the suit land comprised in Block 83 Plot 556 located at Kasayi-Kyaggwe, Mukono District?

- 42. Pw1 stated in his evidence that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant together with Nanyonjo Florence, before her demise, approached him with a view of buying his land. However, he turned down their proposal. - 43. That however, after the death of Nanyonjo Florence, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant forcefully came onto the suit land and started illegally constructing thereon. - 44. Counsel for the Plaintiff cited the case of Justine E. M. N Lutaaya versus Sterling Civil Engineering Co. SCCA No. 11 of 2002 as regards to what amounts to trespass. - 45. Counsel also cited the case of Sheikh Mohammed Lubowa versus Kitara Enterprises Ltd C. A No. 4 of 1987 where it was observed that for one to succeed in an action for trespass, the following have to be proved; that the disputed land belonged to

say, we think it is more probable than not, then the burden of proof is discharged but ig the probabilities are equal, then it is not."

- 51. In the instant case, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to discharge this burden. - 52. Issue 3 is also answered in the negative.

Issue four

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought?

53. Having found that the Plaintiff has failed to discharge his legal burden of proving his case to the satisfaction of this Court, this Court finds that he is not entitled to any of the remedies sought.

Conclusion

54. In the final result, this Court finds no merit in this suit and it is dismissed with no orders at to costs.

day of $A$ Dated this 2024 David Matovu

JUDGE

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Zabwe Fredrick v Orient Bank & Others SCCA No. 4 of 2006

Case cited

Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Domanico (U) Ltd SCCA No.22 of 1992

Case cited

Western Uganda Importers and Distributers Ltd v Muhasa Ivan Mpondi, Civil Suit No. 0014 of 2014

Case cited

David Sejjaaka vs Rebecca Musoke, SCCA No. 12 of 1985

Case cited

Justine E. M. N Lutaaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Co. SCCA No. 11 of 2002

Case cited

Sheikh Mohammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd C.A No. 4 of 1987

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.