Wakilii

Magango and 2 Others v Wamala Kalibala (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 197 · 2022 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal from the High Court (Land Division) which had upheld the trial magistrate's decision on land ownership and trespass
Decision
Appeal dismissed; appellants ordered to give vacant possession of the land within 60 days failing which they shall be evicted

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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

The Court of Appeal dismissed a second appeal challenging findings that the appellants were trespassers on registered mailo land. The Court held that the appellants' predecessor, Costa Wanyana, was merely a bare licensee brought onto the land as a caretaker and did not acquire a kibanja, lawful, or bona fide occupancy interest, particularly given section 29(4) of the Land Act which excludes licensees. Trespass being a continuing tort, the suit was not barred by limitation since the cause of action persisted while the appellants occupied the land. The appellate court found no basis to interfere with the discretionary award of general damages. The appeal failed on all grounds.

Facts

Land at Kibuga Block 24 Plots 1042 and 1193 (formerly Plot 165) at Lungujja belonged to Yolamu Sepuya, the respondent's grandfather, who sub-divided it among his offspring including Israel Kalibala, the respondent's father. Sepuya brought Costa Wanyana onto the land as a caretaker; she sold local brew and lived there until her death in 1985/1986, when she was buried on the land having no known children. The respondent inherited the land from his father and was registered as proprietor in 1989. The appellants, claiming to descend from Wanyana through her purported heir Leonora Namisango, entered and remained on the land, later renting a house to the first appellant and constructing a perimeter wall by force. The respondent unsuccessfully pursued their eviction through local council and RDC offices before suing in the Chief Magistrate's Court in 2015 for a declaration of ownership, eviction, mesne profits, and general damages. The appellants alleged Wanyana had purchased a kibanja but produced no documents, claiming they were burnt by the mentally ill Namisango.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellants or their predecessors held a kibanja (customary tenant) interest in the suit land.
  2. Whether the appellants or their predecessors were lawful or bona fide occupants of the suit land under section 29 of the Land Act.
  3. Whether the appellants were trespassers on the suit land.
  4. Whether the respondent's suit was barred by the Limitation Act.
  5. Whether the award of general damages of UGX 1,000,000 was excessive and unjustified.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • The orders of the first appellate court are upheld.
  • The appellants, being trespassers on the land comprised in Kibuga Block 24 Plots 1042 and 1193 at Lungujja, shall hand over vacant possession to the respondent forthwith.
  • In the event that the appellants fail to do so within 60 days, they shall be evicted therefrom.

Key headnotes

Land Law — Customary Tenure (Kibanja) — Proof of Acquisition
A claim to a kibanja (customary tenant) interest must be proved by evidence of the custom and manner of acquisition; mere assertion that one is a kibanja holder, possession, or the existence of graves on the land is insufficient proof of customary tenure.
Land Law — Lawful and Bona Fide Occupancy — Section 29 Land Act
A person occupying land on the basis of a licence from the registered owner cannot, by virtue of section 29(4) of the Land Act, be a lawful or bona fide occupant, regardless of the length of occupation.
Land Law — Bare Licence — Nature and Non-transferability
A person invited onto land as a caretaker is a bare licensee who acquires no legal or equitable interest in the land, cannot transfer the licence to third parties, and cannot enforce it against a successor in title of the licensor.
Tort — Trespass to Land — Continuing Tort and Limitation
Trespass to land is a continuing tort; for as long as the trespasser remains in occupation the cause of action subsists, and the registered proprietor may bring an action to evict at any time while the trespass continues without being defeated by the limitation period.
Civil Procedure — New Point on Appeal — Limitation
An appellate court may, in the interests of justice, exercise its discretion to entertain a new point of law not raised in the lower courts, particularly where it concerns the jurisdiction of the court and the facts before it are sufficient to dispose of the question.
Damages — General Damages for Trespass — Appellate Interference
An appellate court will not interfere with a discretionary award of general damages unless the trial court acted on wrong principles or the amount is manifestly excessive or manifestly low; trespass being actionable per se, damage is presumed once trespass is proved.

Legislation cited (17)

  • Land Act Cap 227 s.1(1)
  • Land Act Cap 227 s.3
  • Land Act Cap 227 s.3(4)
  • Land Act Cap 227 s.29(1)
  • Land Act Cap 227 s.29(2)
  • Land Act Cap 227 s.29(4)
  • Land Act Cap 227 s.29(5)
  • Limitation Act Cap 80 s.5
  • Civil Procedure Act s.72
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 237
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 237(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 237(8)
  • Judicature Act s.14
  • Registration of Titles Act s.56
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 2
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal rule 31(2)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal rule 102(a)

Cases cited (13)

  • Henry Kifamunte v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • R v Hassan bin Said [1942] 9 EACA 62
  • Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch D 9
  • Ndimwibo Sande and 3 Others v Allen Peace Ampaire (Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2011)
  • Kampala District Land Board and George Mutale v Venansio Babweyaka and Others (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
  • Isaaga Kalya and 2 Others v Moses Macekengu Ikagobya (Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2012)
  • John Busuulwa v John Kityo, Muhamad Lubuuka and Sali (Civil Appeal No. 112 of 2003)
  • Justine E.M.N. Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Moya Drift Farm Ltd v Theuri (1973) EA 114
  • Tifu Lukwago v Samwiri Mudde and Another (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1996)
  • Tanganyika Farmers v Unyamwezi [1960] EA 620
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Manume David Kitamirike (Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2020)
  • Onyokol Akol Johnson v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 71 of 2010)
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.