Bahemuka and 6 Others v Berochan
Bahemuka and 6 Others v Berochan (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2019) [2021] UGHCCD 100 (17 May 2021)
The appellate court found that while there were minor inconsistencies in the respondent's evidence regarding the size and period of occupation of the suit land, these did not amount to a departure from her pleadings or deliberate untruthfulness. The core issue was ownership, and the evidence established that both parties identified and occupied land in Kyangwali with the help of the L.C1 chairman. However, the trial magistrate failed to visit locus in quo, which was necessary to ascertain the actual boundaries and description of the land in dispute. The absence of a locus visit rendered the t…
Source excerpt
- Land Ownership Disputes
- Allocation Of Public Land
- Locus In Quo Requirements
- Evidence Evaluation
- Trespass
- Burden Of Proof