Uganda Case Law

Yewagnesh Birriggwa v Walusimbi and 3 Others

Yewagnesh Birriggwa v Walusimbi and 3 Others (Civil Appeal 52 of 2014) [2023] UGCA 353 (23 March 2023)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 52 of 2014

Judge

Musoke, JA, Bamugemereire, JA, Musota, JA

The Court of Appeal found that the trial Judge erred in law and fact by holding that the respondents, who had last cultivated the land in 1989, were bona fide occupants at the time the appellant was registered as proprietor in 2002. The evidence established that the land had been vacant and unutilized for over ten years prior to the appellant's acquisition, amounting to abandonment under section 37 of the Land Act. Consequently, the respondents lost any bona fide occupancy rights, and the appellant's registered title was not subject to any kibanja interest. The burden of proof to establish a…

Source excerpt

• Kibanja Interest
• Bona Fide Occupant
• Vacant Possession
• Burden Of Proof
• Land Act Interpretation

Yewagnesh Birriggwa v Herbert Walusimbi and Others

Yewagnesh Birriggwa v Herbert Walusimbi and Others (Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2014) [2023] UGCA 382 (23 March 2023)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2014

Judge

Musoke, JA, Bamugemereire, JA, Musota, JA

The Court of Appeal found that the trial Judge erred in law and fact by holding that the respondents, who had last cultivated the land in 1989, were bona fide occupants at the time the appellant was registered as proprietor in 2002. The evidence showed the land had been vacant and unutilized for over ten years prior to the appellant's acquisition, amounting to abandonment under section 37 of the Land Act. Consequently, the respondents lost their status as bona fide occupants, and the appellant's registered title was not subject to any kibanja interest. The burden of proof to establish the kib…

Source excerpt

• Kibanja Interest
• Bona Fide Occupant
• Vacant Possession
• Burden Of Proof
• Land Act Interpretation

Benard Miltary v Waswa Oritibo

Benard Miltary v Waswa Oritibo (Civil Appeal No. 2251 of 2016) [2021] UGHCLD 158 (4 November 2021)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 2251 of 2016

Judge

Nyanzi, J

The High Court dismissed an appeal over a kibanja dispute, holding that the suit was not res judicata, was not time barred, and the Land Act points were irrelevant.

• Kibanja Ownership
• Trespass To Land
• Res Judicata
• Limitation Periods
• Land Act Interpretation
• Res-judicata

Mwesigye v Mwesigye & Another

Mwesigye v Mwesigye & Another (Civil Appeal 11 of 2012) [2015] UGHC 6 (28 October 2015)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 11 of 2012

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to prove that the suit land qualified as family land under the Land Act 1998. The court found that the appellant and her spouse did not reside on the suit land, and there was insufficient evidence that the family derived sustenance from it. The statutory requirements for family land—residence and sustenance—were not satisfied, making spousal consent unnecessary for the sale. The trial Magistrate's evaluation of evidence was upheld, and the sale to the second respondent was deemed valid.

Source excerpt

• Family Land Definition
• Spousal Consent For Land Sale
• Evidence Evaluation
• Land Act Interpretation

National Housing And Construction Corporation v Kampala District Land Board & Anor

National Housing And Construction Corporation v Kampala District Land Board & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2002) [2004] UGCA 7 (1 February 2004)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2002

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant was a bona fide occupant of the disputed land and set aside the High Court judgment, cancelling the second respondent's title.

• Bona Fide Occupancy
• Statutory Leases
• Land Act Interpretation
• Registration Of Titles
• Leasehold Rights
• Land-and-property

Kampala District Land Board and Another v Babweyaka and Others

Kampala District Land Board and Another v Babweyaka and Others (CIVIL APPEAL No . 16 OF 2OO2) [2002] UGSC 50 (6 August 2002)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

CIVIL APPEAL No . 16 OF 2OO2

Judge

Oder, JSC, J.W.N.Tsekooko, JSC, Mulenga, JSC, Kanyeihamba, JSC, Kato, JSC

The Supreme Court of Uganda held that the High Court trial was fundamentally defective for lack of oral evidence and remitted the land dispute for retrial.

• Customary Ownership
• Bona Fide Occupancy
• Land Allocation Procedure
• Mistrial
• Oral Evidence
• Land Act Interpretation

Bamweyaka and Others v Kampala District Land Board and Another

Bamweyaka and Others v Kampala District Land Board and Another (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2002) [2002] UGCA 19 (6 August 2002)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2002

Judge

Mukasa-Kikonyogo, DCJ, Okello, JA, Twinomujuni, JA

The Court of Appeal allowed a land appeal, holding the appellants were customary tenants and that the District Land Board unlawfully allocated the land.

• Customary Tenure
• Allocation Of Land
• Fraudulent Registration
• District Land Board Powers
• Land Act Interpretation
• Customary-tenure

Babweyaka and Others v Kampala District Land Board and Another

Babweyaka and Others v Kampala District Land Board and Another (Civil Suit No. 511 of 2001) [2001] UGHC 120 (21 December 2001)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit No. 511 of 2001

Judges

Katutsi, j

The High Court held that the plaintiffs were neither lawful nor bona fide occupants and were not customary owners, so the lease and title to the second defendant were upheld.

• Lawful Occupancy
• Bona Fide Occupancy
• Customary Tenure
• Registration Of Titles
• Statutory Lease
• Land Act Interpretation

Occupants v George Mutala and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 511 of 2001)

Occupants v George Mutala and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 511 of 2001) [2001] UGCA 62 (21 December 2001)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

High Court Civil Suit No. 511 of 2001

Judge

Okello, JA

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in failing to recognize the appellants as customary tenants of the suit land. The evidence established that the appellants and their predecessors had occupied and developed the land for over forty years without lease or licence from the controlling authority, which brought them within the definition of customary tenure under the Land Act. The District Land Board had no authority to allocate the suit land to the second respondent, as it was not available for allocation under section 60(1)(a) of the Land Act. The allocation and subsequent reg…

Source excerpt

• Customary Tenure
• Bona Fide Occupancy
• Allocation Of Land
• Fraudulent Registration
• Land Act Interpretation