Wakilii

Hamurwa Town Council and Others v Sanyu (Civil Appeal 191 of 2020)

Court of Appeal · [2023] UGCA 299 · 2023 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First civil appeal from a High Court judgment in a land ownership suit.
Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and orders set aside; old market land declared Government land and excluded from the respondent's certificate of title.

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

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the old Karukara market land was Government land. The local authorities had been in unchallenged possession of the unregistered land for about 36 years, so under sections 5 and 6(1) of the Limitation Act the administrators were time-barred from recovering it. The 1st appellant could not be a bona fide occupant under section 29 of the Land Act, which applies only to registered land or formal Government resettlement, but acquired ownership by long possession. The respondent's hearsay evidence that her late father had let the land to the authorities was unproven. The trial judgment and damages awards were set aside, and the market land was excluded from the respondent's certificate of title.

Facts

The respondent and her co-administrators of the estate of the late Simeo Ruritwa claimed ownership of unregistered land of about 17 hectares at Karukara Trading Centre, Hamurwa, including a portion ("the old market land") on which the local authorities operated a market. Ruritwa had obtained a 1973 lease offer over the larger parcel from the Uganda Land Commission. The administrators alleged that Ruritwa had merely permitted the authorities to operate the market as his tenants. The local authorities asserted that the old market land, about one acre, was Government land on which they had operated a market since 1953, and that it was excluded from Ruritwa's land, registered as Plot 6, Block 117. From 2009 the administrators began asserting ownership, and in 2010 the authorities paid rent for adjoining land. In December 2012 the Town Clerk asked that the administrators' titling be halted, and in 2013 the authorities fenced the land and stopped paying rent, prompting the suit. The High Court found for the respondent, ordering processing of a title and awarding mesne profits and general damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st appellant was a bona fide occupant of the old market land within the meaning of section 29 of the Land Act.
  2. Whether the trial judge erred in finding the respondent the owner of the 17 hectares, including the old market land, without a supporting survey or expert report.
  3. Whether the trial judge wrongly prevented the appellants from tendering in evidence the cadastral map for Block 117 Plot 6.
  4. Whether the local authorities had acquired ownership of the old market land by long, unchallenged possession under the Limitation Act.
  5. Whether the administrators' action to recover the old market land was time-barred.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment and orders of the trial Court set aside.
  • The old Karukara Market Land is Government land and does not form part of the larger parcel of land belonging to the estate of the late Ruritwa.
  • The 3rd appellant may process a certificate of title for the large parcel of land belonging to the respondent as administrator of the estate, but the old Karukara Market Land shall not be included in that certificate of title.
  • The respondent to pay the costs of the appeal and those in the Court below.

Key headnotes

Land — Bona Fide Occupant — Section 29(2)(a) Land Act Applies Only to Registered Land
A person may claim the status of a bona fide occupant under section 29(2)(a) of the Land Act only in respect of registered land; the status is not available to a person occupying unregistered land.
Land — Bona Fide Occupant — Settlement by Government Under Formal Resettlement Scheme
Bona fide occupancy by virtue of settlement by Government or its agent under section 29(2) of the Land Act presupposes natural persons settled pursuant to a formal resettlement scheme, and a claimant must prove which Government settled them on the land.
Land — Adverse Possession — Limitation Act ss.5 and 6(1) — Acquisition of Title by Long Possession
Under sections 5 and 6(1) of the Limitation Act, where a person remains in possession of land for twelve years or more after the paper owner's right of action accrued, the paper owner's action for recovery is barred and the possessor acquires ownership by possession, whether or not possession originated as that of a squatter or trespasser.
Evidence — Hearsay — Statements of a Deceased Person Reported by a Witness
A witness's account of what a deceased person told them is hearsay and inadmissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless it falls within a recognised exception, and its reliability is further diminished by the lapse of time since the statement was made.
Evidence — Tendering Documents — Failure to Tender at Trial
A party who made no attempt to tender a document in evidence at trial cannot, on appeal, fault the trial judge for failing to admit that document.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Land Act Cap. 227 s.1(e)
  • Land Act Cap. 227 s.29(2)(a)
  • Land Act Cap. 227 s.29(2)(b)
  • Land Act Cap. 227 s.29(2)(c)
  • Land Act Cap. 227 s.29(3)
  • Limitation Act Cap. 80 s.5
  • Limitation Act Cap. 80 s.6(1)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.30(1)(a)

Cases cited (5)

  • Uganda v George Wilson Ssimbwa (Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1993)
  • Kampala District Land Board and Anor v National Housing and Construction Company [2005] 2 EA 69
  • Kampala District Land Board and Another v Venansio Babweyaka and Others (Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2007)
  • JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another [2002] 3 All ER 865
  • Powell v McFarlane [1977] 38 P&CR 452
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.