Asiimwe v Kalule and 4 Others (Civil Appeal 38 of 2019) [2022] UGHCLD 276 (9 May 2022)
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
Civil Appeal 38 of 2019
Judge
Ojok, J
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, upholding findings that the respondents were bona fide occupants and that the trial court properly awarded costs.
Mbaziira v Mande Kafeero (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2017) [2021] UGHCLD 123 (29 June 2021)
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2017
Judge
Keitirima, J
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding that the appellant lacked a valid interest in the suit land and that the trespass and damages award were properly proved.
Mutashwera v Ryangombe (Civil Appeal No. 181 of 2015) [2017] UGCA 145 (5 December 2017)
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Case number
Civil Appeal No. 181 of 2015
Judge
Kasule, JA, Obura, JA, Barishaki-Cheborion, JA
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court, as the first appellate court, was entitled to re-evaluate all evidence on record, including issues relating to developments made by the late Lt. Ryangombe, as these were raised during trial. The appellate court found no error in the High Court's decision to leave the house constructed by Lt. Ryangombe intact, as his estate was not a party to the suit and thus entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse order could be made. The permanent injunction issued did not apply to the beneficiaries of Lt. Ryangombe's estate for the same reason. The Court…
Nalwoga v Bagaaliwo (Civil Appeal No. 084 of 2012) [2014] UGHCLD 37 (24 October 2014)
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
Civil Appeal No. 084 of 2012
Judge
Anna B. Mugenyi, J
The appellate court found that the respondent was a bonafide occupant of the suit kibanja, having occupied, developed, and utilised the land continuously and unchallenged since 1960, with the only challenge arising from the appellant after the 1995 Constitution. The respondent's evidence of occupation was corroborated by multiple witnesses, while the appellant's evidence was inconsistent and failed to establish her claim of inheritance or lawful occupancy. The court held that the respondent's evidence regarding purchase of the land was a departure from his pleadings and was not considered, bu…