Uganda Case Law

Kakooza v Mayanja

Kakooza v Mayanja (Civil Appeal 5 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 204 (20 April 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 5 of 2024

Judge

Tweyanze, J

The court found that the Appellant failed to prove ownership of the suit Kibanja on the balance of probabilities. The evidence presented by the Appellant was inconsistent and contradicted by documentary and testimonial evidence, including local council confirmation of the Respondent's long-term occupation and ownership. The Appellant's documents did not sufficiently describe the land in dispute, and his testimony was inconsistent regarding dates and boundaries. The Respondent's occupation was corroborated by local authorities and unchallenged documentary evidence. The court held that the burd…

Source excerpt

• Customary Tenure
• Ownership Disputes
• Burden Of Proof
• Evidence Evaluation

Kambenkwine Christopher and Another v Rose Bella Rwomushana and Others

Kambenkwine Christopher and Another v Rose Bella Rwomushana and Others (Civil Appeal No: 53 of 2014) [2024] UGCA 344 (19 December 2024)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No: 53 of 2014

Judge

Kiryabwire, JA, Muzamiru, JA, Gashirabake, JA

Second appeal in a land dispute dismissed because the grounds raised mixed questions of law and fact, outside the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction.

• Land Ownership
• Customary Tenure
• Trespass
• Jurisdiction On Appeal
• Title Registration
• Second-appeal-jurisdiction

Olum v Eselu and Another

Olum v Eselu and Another (Civil Appeal 3 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 798 (28 August 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 3 of 2022

Judge

Adonyo, J

The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish ownership of the suit land. He did not produce the original purchase agreement or credible evidence of boundaries, and his witnesses were inconsistent and unable to identify the land in dispute. The respondents, on the other hand, presented convincing evidence of inheritance, boundaries, and documentary proof, including clan minutes and letters of administration. The court found that the suit land was not the same as the land purchased by the appellant from Bisekere, but rather formed part of the respondents' inherite…

Source excerpt

• Ownership Dispute
• Burden Of Proof
• Documentary Evidence
• Customary Tenure
• Boundary Determination

Syanywana Kasereka and 2 Others v Registrar of Titles and Another (HCT-01-LD-CS 21 of 2013)

Syanywana Kasereka and 2 Others v Registrar of Titles and Another (HCT-01-LD-CS 21 of 2013) [2024] UGHC 404 (19 April 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-01-LD-CS 21 of 2013

Judge

Wagona, J

The court found that while the plaintiffs had occupied and used the suit land for a long time, their methods of acquisition—through area chiefs or informal arrangements—did not confer customary or lawful occupancy under the prevailing law (Land Reform Decree 1975, Public Lands Act 1969). The evidence did not establish that any plaintiff held a recognized customary or statutory interest. The lease and certificate of title issued to Amon Bazira in 1982 were not proved to have been obtained by fraud or illegality attributable to him; the plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence from the Uganda Land…

Source excerpt

• Customary Tenure
• Leasehold Title
• Eviction Procedure
• Fraud In Land Registration
• Public Land Allocation

Hakiri & 2 Others v Attorney General & 31 Others

Hakiri & 2 Others v Attorney General & 31 Others (Civil Appeal 14 of 2023) [2024] UGSC 18 (16 April 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 14 of 2023

Judge

Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, JSC, Mike Chibita, JSC, Elizabeth Musoke, JSC, Stephen Musota, JSC, Christopher Madrama Izama, JSC

The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts that the appellants were evicted from the suit land in 1992, not 2004. Consequently, their suit filed in 2005 was time barred under section 5 of the Limitation Act, as more than 12 years had elapsed since the accrual of the cause of action. The appellants failed to establish status as customary tenants or bona fide occupants, as their occupation was by Government license and not under customary law or unchallenged for the requisite period. The court held that the law of limitation applies strictly, and no sta…

Source excerpt

• Limitation Periods
• Eviction Procedure
• Customary Tenure
• Bona Fide Occupancy
• Compulsory Acquisition
• Trespass To Land

Tibaijuka and 8 Others v Bagwa Byenkya and Another

Tibaijuka and 8 Others v Bagwa Byenkya and Another (Civil Appeal 3 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 439 (29 February 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 3 of 2022

Judge

Byaruhanga Rugyema, J

The appeal was dismissed primarily because it was filed out of time, with no evidence of a timely application for certified copies of judgment and proceedings, rendering it incompetent. The trial magistrate was found to have had pecuniary jurisdiction at the time the suit was filed, as there was no evidence that the value of the land exceeded the statutory limit in 2005. The magistrate properly evaluated the evidence, finding that the respondents were the rightful owners of both registered and unregistered land, supported by a certificate of title and possession. The appellants failed to prov…

Source excerpt

• Trespass To Land
• Customary Tenure
• Pecuniary Jurisdiction
• Evaluation Of Evidence
• Locus In Quo Procedure

Mbugano and 2 Others v Mulimba

Mbugano and 2 Others v Mulimba (Civil Appeal 60 of 2020) [2023] UGHCLD 348 (20 October 2023)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Appeal 60 of 2020

Judge

Serunkuma, J

The High Court allowed a land appeal, holding that the appellants’ prior lease offer gave them an equitable interest in 259 hectares, ahead of the respondent’s later lease.

• Leasehold Interest
• Customary Tenure
• Equitable Interest
• Land Description Disputes
• Public Land Grants
• Equitable-interest

Kyeyune and Another v Nakafeero and Others

Kyeyune and Another v Nakafeero and Others (Civil Appeal 45 of 2017) [2023] UGHCLD 231 (4 August 2023)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Appeal 45 of 2017

Judge

Bernard Namanya, J

High Court land appeal over Kibanja ownership held that the appellants proved lawful occupation and the respondents failed to prove a valid competing claim.

• Kibanja Acquisition
• Mailo Land Consent
• Customary Tenure
• Land Eviction Orders
• Burden Of Proof
• Damages Award

Kiggundu v Byarugaba (High Court Civil Suit 378 of 2018)

Kiggundu v Byarugaba (High Court Civil Suit 378 of 2018) [2023] UGHCLD 164 (16 June 2023)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

High Court Civil Suit 378 of 2018

Judge

Asiimwe, J

The High Court dismissed a land dispute claim, finding the plaintiff failed to prove customary tenancy or trespass, while the defendant proved lawful leasehold title.

• Customary Tenure
• Urban Land Ownership
• Trespass To Land
• Fraudulent Land Registration
• Customary-tenure
• Trespass-to-land

Dr. Businge v Kaddu

Dr. Businge v Kaddu (Civil Suit 312 of 2013) [2023] UGHCLD 136 (24 May 2023)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit 312 of 2013

Judge

Nkonge, J

The plaintiff proved ownership of the suit land by virtue of a registered title obtained from NHCC, which was unchallenged and conclusive under the Registration of Titles Act. The defendant failed to establish a valid customary or kibanja interest, as his evidence was riddled with discrepancies regarding location, measurements, and authority of vendors. The agreements relied upon by the defendant pertained to land in Lugala, not Namungoona, and lacked proper consent from the registered owner. The purported estate beneficiaries had no valid claim, title, or letters of administration over the s…

Source excerpt

• Registered Land Title
• Customary Tenure
• Trespass To Land
• Burden Of Proof
• Remedies For Trespass