Batulumayo v Angurya (HCT-04-CV-CA-0016/1999)
Batulumayo v Angurya (HCT-04-CV-CA-0016/1999) [2005] UGHCLD 1 (1 June 2005)
The appeal was dismissed because the Chief Magistrate did not improperly admit fresh evidence; the judgment in question was part of the trial record. The doctrine of res judicata did not apply as the parties and subject matter differed between the prior and present suits. The Limitation Act did not bar the respondent's claim because the appellant's possession was rendered illegal by the 1970 judgment, and he could not rely on limitation to perpetuate an illegality. The Chief Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence, and the appellant was or ought to have been aware of the respondent's right…
Source excerpt
- Limitation Periods
- Res Judicata
- Land Sale Disputes
- Trusts In Land
- Judicial Evaluation Of Evidence