Tom Walusimbi v Andrew Kisawuzi (Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2013)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 225 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second civil appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court decision exercising appellate jurisdiction over a Chief Magistrate's Court judgment

Decision

Appeal dismissed; the High Court decision in favour of the respondent is upheld.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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 vehicle-ownership dispute, the Court of Appeal considered whether title passed to a buyer who purchased a Land Rover from an impostor who had impersonated the registered owner. Applying section 22 of the Sale of Goods Act (now section 29 of the Sales of Goods and Supply of Services Act) and the nemo dat quod non habet principle, the court held that the impostor had no title to pass. The market overt exception, an estoppel-based doctrine requiring a sale in an open, public and legally constituted market, did not apply because the sale was conducted through a broker. The appeal was dismissed and each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the appeal.

Facts

Geoffrey Mwase, impersonating the respondent (the registered owner of Land Rover Freelander UAL 688F), sold the vehicle to the appellant for Shs 25,000,000 through a broker, Eddie Masai. Mwase handed over the car keys, the original log book, signed transfer forms and a copy of the respondent's identity card. A search at the Uganda Revenue Authority showed the respondent as the registered owner. When the appellant attempted to drive the car, it alarmed that the wrong key was being used and it was towed to Old Kampala Police Station. The appellant had no knowledge at the time of purchase that the seller was not the true owner. Mwase later disappeared and was subsequently prosecuted and convicted of theft of a motor vehicle. The appellant sued in the Chief Magistrate's Court claiming ownership and delivery of the vehicle, and the magistrate found in his favour. The respondent appealed to the High Court, which reversed, holding the vehicle had not been sold in a market overt. The appellant then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

Whether the motor vehicle was sold in a market overt.
Whether the High Court judge erred in applying the doctrine of market overt to the case.
Whether the High Court judge failed to re-evaluate the evidence on record and reached a wrong conclusion.
Whether the High Court judge erred in failing to resolve the preliminary point that the High Court appeal was defective for late service of the Memorandum and Record of Appeal.
Whether the High Court judge erred in awarding costs against the appellant.

Orders

The appeal is dismissed.
Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal.

Key headnotes

Sale of Goods — Nemo dat quod non habet — Passing of title by a non-owner

Where goods are sold by a person who is neither the owner nor selling with the owner's authority or consent, the buyer acquires no better title than the seller had; a person who has no title cannot pass good title.

Sale of Goods — Market overt — Estoppel-based exception to nemo dat

The doctrine of market overt is an exception to the nemo dat rule founded on estoppel: an owner who by his conduct permits goods to be sold in an open, public and legally constituted market is precluded from denying the seller's authority to sell.

Sale of Goods — Market overt — Sale through a broker not within the doctrine

A sale conducted through a broker, and not in an open, public and legally constituted market in the presence and sight of the public, does not constitute a sale in market overt.

Sale of Goods Act — Survival of the market overt exception after repeal of imported English statute

The market overt exception survived the cessation of England's Sale of Goods Act in Uganda because it rests on the conduct of the owner (estoppel) rather than on the imported statute, and remains applicable so long as the statute provides a conduct-based exception to the nemo dat rule.

Second Appeal — Limited power to question findings of fact

On a second appeal the Court of Appeal is precluded from questioning the trial court's findings of fact where there is evidence to support them, and may interfere only where there is no evidence to support a finding, that being a question of law.

Memorandum of Appeal — Grounds offending Rule 86(1)

A ground of appeal that is general and not concise, contrary to Rule 86(1) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, is liable to be struck out.

Costs — Costs follow the event under section 27(2) Civil Procedure Act

Costs follow the event under section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act unless the court for good reason orders otherwise; a successful party's costs are not denied merely on account of pre-litigation conduct, which bears on the assessment of damages rather than on costs.

Legislation cited (9)

Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.32
Judicature Act s.14(3)
Sale of Goods Act Cap 820 s.22
Sales of Goods and Supply of Services Act s.29
Penal Code Act s.254
Penal Code Act s.265
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.86(1)
Evidence Act Cap 6 s.114
Civil Procedure Act s.27(2)

Cases cited (5)

Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
Bishopsgate Motor Finance Corporation Ltd v Transport Brakes Ltd [1949] 1 All ER 37 (CA)
Lee v Bayes (1856) 18 CB 99
Deura Nanji v Haridas Kanji (1949) 16 EA 35
Jennifer Behange, Rutangindo Aurelia, Paulo Bagenzi v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1999)

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.