Mugisha and 2 Others v Kaija
Mugisha and 2 Others v Kaija (Civil Appeal 56 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 923 (13 September 2024)
The appellate court found that the trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence and correctly determined that the appellants exceeded the 10 acres sold to them and trespassed on an additional 5 acres of the respondent's land. There was no evidence that the wetland was gazetted or excluded from the respondent's ownership. The sale agreement indicated the wetland as a boundary, not as excluded land. The doctrine of estoppel did not apply, as the respondent did not make any representation that the wetland was not part of his land. The first ground of appeal was struck out for being too gener…
Source excerpt
- Trespass To Land
- Ownership Dispute
- Doctrine Of Estoppel
- Evaluation Of Evidence