Uganda Case Law

Odong v Ojok

Odong v Ojok (Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 25 (9 February 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2020

Judge

Okello, J

The High Court, sitting as a first appellate court, found that the trial Magistrate did not rely on testimony from a witness at the locus in quo who had not testified in court, and that no evidence of bias or procedural irregularity was established. The court held that the Respondent's claim to the suit land was supported by credible evidence of long, uninterrupted occupation and inheritance through his paternal lineage, satisfying the requirements for acquisition by prescription. The Appellant's claim was found to be inconsistent, unsupported by evidence, and weakened by his conduct and lack…

Source excerpt

• Customary Land Ownership
• Prescription
• Adverse Possession
• Locus In Quo Procedure
• Burden Of Proof

Kwesiga v Uganda Electricity Distribution Co. Limited and 2 Others (MISCELLENOUS APPLICANT EDT 19 of 2014)

Kwesiga v Uganda Electricity Distribution Co. Limited and 2 Others (MISCELLENOUS APPLICANT EDT 19 of 2014) [2019] UGIC 218 (6 September 2019)

Court

Industrial Court of Uganda

Case number

MISCELLENOUS APPLICANT EDT 19 of 2014

Judges

Charles Okoth Owor - Chairperson Electricity Disputes Tribunal, Anaclet Turyakira, - Vice Chair Person Electricty Disputes Tribunal, Eng. Dr. Moses Musaazi - Member Electricity Disputes Tribunal

The Tribunal dismissed a preliminary objection, holding that a complaint over a power line on land was a continuing trespass and not barred by limitation or prescription.

• Limitation Periods
• Trespass To Land
• Continuous Tort
• Prescription
• Compensation For Land Use
• Trespass-to-land

Ojede v Lutalo

Ojede v Lutalo (Civil Appeal No. 126 of 2012) [2019] UGCA 123 (6 May 2019)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 126 of 2012

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal over a disputed Lira property, holding the land board wrongly granted the respondent a lease and recognizing the appellant’s family interest in Part B.

• Lease Expiry
• Expropriated Properties Act
• Land Board Powers
• Fraud In Land Transactions
• Prescription
• Conversion To Freehold

Okullo v Apiyo

Okullo v Apiyo (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2016) [2019] UGHCCD 57 (28 February 2019)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2016

Judge

Stephen Mubiru, J

High Court civil appeal over customary land ownership was dismissed. The appellant failed to prove purchase, adverse possession, prescription, or estoppel.

• Customary Land Tenure
• Adverse Possession
• Prescription
• Proprietary Estoppel
• Limitation Periods
• Customary-land-tenure

Ogaba Vs Kilama

Ogaba Vs Kilama (CIVIL APPEAL No. 0051 OF 2015) [2018] UGHCCD 63 (25 October 2018)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

CIVIL APPEAL No. 0051 OF 2015

Judge

Stephen Mubiru, J

Neither party proved customary ownership of the land by adducing evidence of applicable customary rules or acquisition in accordance with those rules. The dispute was reduced to possessory rights, not ownership. The respondent was found to be in effective control and possession of the land, as evidenced by physical occupation and cultivation. Possession is good against all except someone with better title, which the appellant failed to prove. The trial magistrate erred in dividing the land without evidentiary basis and in recording evidence from persons who had not testified in court. The app…

Source excerpt

• Customary Tenure
• Possessory Rights
• Prescription
• Abandonment
• Burden Of Proof

Sebi Kala v Misia

Sebi Kala v Misia (Civil Appeal No. 0031 of 2017) [2017] UGHCLD 248 (26 October 2017)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 0031 of 2017

Judge

Stephen Mubiru, J

The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding that the appellant occupied the land by permission, had no title by prescription or estoppel, and was a trespasser after permission was withdrawn.

• Customary Land Tenure
• Trespass To Land
• Proprietary Estoppel
• Prescription
• Burden Of Proof
• Customary-land-tenure

Farouk Aziz v Abdalla Abdu Mukuru

Farouk Aziz v Abdalla Abdu Mukuru (Civil Appeal 39 of 2000) [2001] UGCA 39 (5 September 2001)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 39 of 2000

Judge

Engwau, JA, Mpagi-Bahigeine, JA, Kitumba, JA

The Court of Appeal found that the doctrine of res judicata did not apply because the record of the R.C. court proceedings was missing and the parties before those courts could not be ascertained. The evidence established that the respondent's mother, Sabina Kabasinguzi, acquired the kibanja in her own right from chief Kikukule, developed it, and lived there for over 40 years. The appellant's mother, Salima Kabasingo, did not have a house or significant developments on the land and her relatives were buried elsewhere. The respondent, having succeeded his mother, had a better claim to the land…

Source excerpt

• Caveats On Land
• Letters Of Administration
• Prescription
• Res Judicata
• Appellate Review

Aziz v Makuru

Aziz v Makuru (Civil Appeal 39 of 2000) [2001] UGCA 36 (11 April 2001)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 39 of 2000

Judge

Mpagi-Bahigeine, JA, Engwau, JA, Kitumba, JA

The Court of Appeal dismissed a second appeal over a disputed kibanja, holding that res judicata was not shown and the respondent’s claim to the land was better supported by the evidence.

• Letters Of Administration
• Caveats
• Prescription
• Res Judicata
• Land Ownership
• Appellate Review

Aziz v Makuru

Aziz v Makuru (Civil Appeal 39 of 2000) [2001] UGCA 41 (1 January 2001)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 39 of 2000

Judge

Mpagi-Bahigeine, DCJ, Engwau, JA, Kitumba, JA

The Court of Appeal found that the doctrine of res judicata did not apply because the record of proceedings before the RC courts was missing, making it impossible to ascertain whether the parties and subject matter were the same. The evidence established that the respondent's mother, Sabina Kabasinguzi, acquired the kibanja in her own right from chief Kikukule, developed it, and lived there for over 40 years. The appellant's mother, Salima Kabasingo, did not have a house or significant developments on the land and her relatives were buried elsewhere. The respondent, having succeeded his mothe…

Source excerpt

• Letters Of Administration
• Caveats On Land
• Prescription
• Res Judicata
• Appellate Review

Alibhai v Alibhai (Civ. App. No. 12/1937)

Alibhai v Alibhai (Civ. App. No. 12/1937) [1938] EACA 1 (1 January 1938)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civ. App. No. 12/1937

Judges

Francis, Ag. C.J. (Uganda), Law, C.J (Zanzibar), Sheridan, (C.J. Kenya)

The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa held that a certificate of ownership under the Land Titles Ordinance confers indefeasible title, and prescription cannot run before registration.

• Registered Land
• Certificate Of Ownership
• Adverse Possession
• Easements
• Prescription Periods
• Partition Of Land