Wakilii

Okiro and Another v Ojoo (Civil Appeal 227 of 2016)

Court of Appeal · [2020] UGCA 2169 · 2020 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal from a High Court decision confirming a Grade One Magistrate's judgment in a land dispute
Decision
Second appeal dismissed; concurrent findings of the lower courts upheld

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 limited to questions of law under section 72 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Court of Appeal struck out grounds raising questions of fact. The Court held that the first appellate Judge had properly re-evaluated the evidence and reached the same conclusion as the trial Magistrate, namely that the respondent acquired the suit land by a valid gift inter vivos. The Court found no special circumstances justifying departure from the concurrent findings of fact of the two lower courts and no illegality compelling interference. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.

Facts

The respondent sued the appellants in the Grade One Magistrate's Court at Katakwi over land in Wera Sub County. The respondent claimed the land was gifted to him by Oiko Mikaya through a written gift inter vivos dated 26 October 1993, witnessed by several persons including the local LC1 Chairman. Oiko, who had no children, had inherited the land from his father Odokir; the respondent was Oiko's paternal nephew. The respondent entered possession in 1993 but was forced off the land by the first appellant. Oiko, testifying in 2011 aged about 100, denied gifting the land and denied signing the deed. The respondent's witnesses testified that Oiko had been coerced and kept drunk by the first appellant. The trial Magistrate found in favour of the respondent, ordered the appellants to vacate, issued a permanent injunction and awarded damages. The High Court dismissed the appellants' first appeal and confirmed the orders.

Issues

  1. Whether the first appellate Judge failed to discharge the duty of a first appellate court to subject the evidence to fresh scrutiny.
  2. Whether grounds raising questions of fact or mixed law and fact are competent on a second appeal under section 72 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Orders

  • Grounds 2 and 3 struck out for offending section 72 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs to the respondent here and in the courts below.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Second Appeals — Confined to Questions of Law under Civil Procedure Act s.72
On a second appeal, grounds that raise questions of fact, or of mixed law and fact, are incompetent under section 72 of the Civil Procedure Act and will be struck out, as such an appeal lies only on grounds that the decision is contrary to law or that a substantial procedural error occurred.
Civil Procedure — Concurrent Findings of Fact — Limits on Interference by Second Appellate Court
A second appellate court will not depart from concurrent findings of fact made by the trial court and the first appellate court unless special circumstances justify it, such as where the evidence was not subjected to adequate scrutiny or where there was no evidence to support the finding.
Land & Property — Gift Inter Vivos — Irrevocability After Effective Transfer
A gift inter vivos of land, once effected by a duly witnessed written instrument, cannot be revoked except where made in contemplation of death and the death does not occur within a reasonable time; a subsequent denial by the donor that he authored the deed is irrelevant where many years have passed since the transfer.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap 71) s.72

Cases cited (7)

  • Attorney General vs Shah No.4 [1971] EA
  • Kifumunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • R vs Hassan bin Said (1942) 9 EACA 62
  • Bogere Moses and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Giuliano Graggo v Claudio Casadio (Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2004)
  • Goustar Enterprises Ltd vs Oumo [2006] EA 77
  • Sophatia Beihi and Others v Nangobi Jane and Others (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2008)
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.