Kisoke and Another v Katalihwa
Kisoke and Another v Katalihwa (Civil Appeal 20 of 2021) [2024] UGHC 219 (19 April 2024)
The High Court found that the respondent failed to prove direct descent from Kadoma Kyampamba and that neither he nor his father ever used or possessed the suit land. The evidence demonstrated that the appellants and their family had occupied and developed the land for over 40 years, qualifying them as owners through adverse possession. The trial magistrate erred by relying on local council judgments that were nullified by the Chief Magistrate, and by accepting the claim of Kiiza Jeles as caretaker without sufficient evidence. The appellants did not plead bonafide occupancy, so the court coul…
Source excerpt
- Adverse Possession
- First Occupancy
- Land Inheritance
- Local Council Jurisdiction
- Bonafide Occupancy
- Pleadings And Amendments