Wakilii

Okidi Anor v Odwong (Civil Appeal No 233 of 2015)

Court of Appeal · [2019] UGCA 18 · 2019 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the High Court sitting in its appellate jurisdiction in a land dispute.
Decision
Appeal dismissed; decision of the first appellate High Court upholding the respondent's title affirmed.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

On a second appeal restricted to questions of law, the Court of Appeal held that the appellants had no interest known in law in the disputed urban land. A licence allegedly granted to their predecessor was personal, non-assignable and extinguished on his death in 1974, and a licensee is barred from claiming bona fide or lawful occupancy under section 29(4) of the Land Act. The appellants had vacated the land before the respondent obtained a lease from Kitgum Town Council, which held the property under a statutory lease and could grant the lease. No fraud was pleaded or proved against the respondent as transferee. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Facts

In 1939 the Uganda Protectorate government deported the Chief of Palabek, Rwot Oloya Umari (the first appellant's father and the second appellant's father-in-law), to Kitgum Town, where he was allocated a large piece of land and lived until his death in 1974. The appellants, claiming as licensees with possessory interest, took over and developed the land. In 1986 they fled the area due to insurgency and sought refuge in Palabek Kai. When the second appellant attempted to return and clear the land, he was stopped by the respondent, to whom Kitgum Town Council had allocated the property. The land was government/urban land held under a statutory lease by the Town Council. Between 1990 and 1995 the respondent applied for and obtained a sub-lease and certificate of title following council proceedings and inspection. The appellants sued to impeach the title alleging fraud and possessory interest. The land was not customary land and no written licence was tendered in evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellants were licensees with possessory interest in the suit land.
  2. Whether the appellants qualified as lawful or bona fide occupants under the Land Act.
  3. Whether the respondent fraudulently acquired the certificate of title to the suit land.

Orders

  • Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the appeal have no merit.
  • Appeal dismissed with costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Second Appeal — Scope Restricted to Questions of Law
On a second appeal under sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Court of Appeal is restricted to questions of law and, where there is evidence supporting a finding of fact, cannot reopen the sufficiency or reasonableness of that finding.
Land & Property — Licence — Personal, Non-Assignable and Extinguished on Death
A bare licence to occupy land is a personal privilege conferring no estate or interest in the land; it cannot be assigned by the licensee and is revoked by the death of the licensee, so it cannot be inherited by successors.
Land & Property — Bona Fide and Lawful Occupants — Effect of Section 29(4) of the Land Act
Under section 29(4) of the Land Act, a person on land on the basis of a licence from the registered owner cannot be taken to be a lawful or bona fide occupant.
Land & Property — Bona Fide Occupancy — Requirement of Continuous Possession and Recognised Tenure
Bona fide occupancy under article 237(8) of the Constitution and section 29 of the Land Act presupposes a registered owner of Mailo, freehold or leasehold land and continuous unchallenged occupation; a claimant who had vacated the land and held no recognised tenure interest cannot qualify.
Land & Property — Fraud in Registration — Must Be Pleaded and Proved Against the Transferee
To impeach a certificate of title for fraud, the fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved, and must be attributable to the transferee; mere influence or status of the registered proprietor does not establish fraud.
Land & Property — Statutory Leases to Urban Authorities — Historical Land Tenure
Under the repealed Public Lands Acts, land within an urban area was deemed granted to the urban authority under a statutory lease of 199 years, which the authority could thereafter sub-lease, enabling its successor district land board to grant valid leasehold title.

Legislation cited (17)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.72
  • Civil Procedure Act s.74
  • Civil Procedure Act s.2(b)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 32(2)
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.1
  • Registration of Titles Act Cap 230
  • Land Act Cap 227 s.29
  • Land Act Cap 227 s.29(4)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.237(3)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.237(8)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.237(9)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.286
  • Public Lands Act Cap 201 1964 s.15
  • Public Lands Act Cap 201 1964 s.2
  • Public Lands Act Cap 201 1964 s.13(2)
  • Public Lands Act Act 13 of 1969 s.23
  • Public Lands Act Act 13 of 1969 s.54

Cases cited (4)

  • Kampala District Land Board and George Mitala v Venasio Babweyaka and 5 Others (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2002)
  • Kampala Bottlers v Damanico (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Russel v Ministry of Commerce for Northern Ireland [1945] NI 184
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.