Wakilii

Okullu v Okidi (Civil Appeal 125 of 2015)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 18 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal from a High Court decision in a customary land dispute
Decision
Appeal dismissed; decision of the first appellate court 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 in a customary land dispute, the Court of Appeal upheld the respondent's preliminary objection that ground one was too general and offended Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, and struck it out. It overruled the objection to ground two, holding its substance raised a point of law under sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act. On the merits, it held that under section 5 of the Limitation Act time runs from when the plaintiff became aware of the trespass, not when the defendant claims to have entered the land; the period ran from 2006, so the suit was not time-barred. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The respondent, Okidi Joseph, claimed ownership of about 100 acres of customary land at Olwor Nguu Central ward, Acoro Parish, Pader Town Council, Pader District, which his father had acquired as virgin forest. He alleged that around 2006, as people returned from IDP camps, the appellant, Okullu Bonny Dabi, trespassed on the land, claiming it belonged to his mother-in-law. The appellant denied the claim and counterclaimed, asserting he inherited the land from his late father Dabiniano Abwola, that relatives were buried on it, and that the respondent had trespassed in 2006, was ejected, and returned in 2009. The Chief Magistrate's Court at Pader declared the appellant owner and ordered the respondent to vacate, holding the suit time-barred from 1982. On first appeal, the High Court at Gulu found the trial court had erred, ordered the land demarcated between the parties so each retained their developments and graves, and held the limitation period ran from 2006. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether ground one of the appeal was incompetent and should be struck out for offending Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. Whether the grounds of appeal raised points of law as required for a second appeal under sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  3. Whether, under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation for recovery of land ran from the date the appellant claimed to have settled on the land (1982) or from the date the respondent became aware of the trespass (2006).

Orders

  • Ground one of the appeal struck out for offending Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Memorandum of Appeal — Rule 86(1) Court of Appeal Rules
A ground of appeal that merely alleges a failure to properly evaluate the evidence, without distinctly specifying the points alleged to have been wrongly decided, is general and vague, offends Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, and is liable to be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Second Appeals — Restriction to Points of Law — Sections 72 and 74 Civil Procedure Act
A second appeal lies only on a point of law; where a ground is framed as an error 'in law and fact' but its substance complains of the misapplication of a statutory provision, it raises a point of law and is competent.
Land & Property — Limitation — Recovery of Land — Accrual of Right of Action under Section 5 Limitation Act
Under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation for recovery of land runs from the date the plaintiff became aware of the trespass infringing his interest, not from the date the defendant claims to have settled on or acquired an interest in the land.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.72(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.74
  • Limitation Act s.5
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, S.I. 16-13 Rule 86(1)

Cases cited (4)

  • Ranchobhai Shivbhai Patel Ltd v Wambusa and Others [2018] UGSC 68
  • Lubansa Jamada v Dr. Ddumba Edward (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2011)
  • Elizabeth Nalunansi Wamala v Jolly Kasande & Others [2017] UGSC 21
  • Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd [1997] UGSC 21
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.