Wakilii

Stanley Mujjumbula v Andrew Babigumira and Another (Civil Appeal No. 330 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 250 · 2025 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal from a High Court (Land Division) judgment in a civil suit concerning ownership of land.
Decision
Appeal substantially dismissed and the trial court's decision affirmed (land returned to the second respondent; ownership and damages claims rejected), but the first respondent ordered to refund UGX 23,000,000 to the appellant as money had and received, with interest at 15% per annum.

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 held that a loan/mortgage deed that was never registered and made without the statutory notice required by the Mortgage Act s.7(1) and the Registration of Titles Act s.116 was illegal ab initio, and that the appellant, having participated in the illegal transaction, could not acquire ownership of the suit land by repaying the loan. It affirmed that he was a bona fide occupant of only 0.007 acres. However, applying the equitable doctrine of money had and received, the Court ordered the first respondent to refund the UGX 23,000,000 the appellant had paid, with interest at 15% per annum, to prevent unjust enrichment.

Facts

The appellant had occupied the suit land (Kyadondo Block 194 Plot 116) as a kibanja holder. In 2005 the first respondent told him he had bought the land from the second respondent, the appellant's uncle and registered owner, and offered to transfer title if the appellant repaid UGX 23,000,000 the second respondent owed. The appellant paid the sum, but the first respondent refused to transfer the title. The first respondent had earlier, in August 2005, entered a sale agreement for the same land with the second respondent, concealed it, and used a loan/mortgage deed dated 20 October 2005 as a façade; the appellant signed as a 'squatter', undertaking to vacate on default. Despite a court injunction, the first respondent transferred the land into his own name. The plot had earlier been sold by the appellant's father to the second respondent in 1971. A court-ordered survey showed the appellant's structures encroached the suit land by only 0.007 acres, with several structures newly built during the litigation.

Issues

  1. Whether the loan/mortgage agreement between the first and second respondents was illegal, and whether the agreement between the appellant and the first respondent was rescinded.
  2. Whether the appellant was a kibanja holder of the whole of the suit land.
  3. Whether the appellant was entitled to damages.

Orders

  • The appellant's claim for ownership of the land is rejected.
  • The trial court's order returning the land to the second respondent is upheld.
  • The appellant's claim for damages is denied.
  • The appellant's request for equitable relief is upheld; the first respondent is to immediately refund the appellant UGX 23,000,000 with interest at 15% per annum from the date of the trial court's judgment until payment in full.
  • Each party to bear their own costs of the appeal and of the trial court.

Key headnotes

Contract Law — Illegality — Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio — No Benefit From an Illegal Transaction
A party who knowingly participates in an illegal transaction cannot found a claim upon it or benefit from it; no action can be maintained on an illegal contract.
Land & Property — Mortgages — Unregistered Mortgage and Want of Statutory Notice — Illegality Ab Initio
A mortgage deed that is never registered and is made without the statutory notice required by section 7(1) of the Mortgage Act and section 116 of the Registration of Titles Act is illegal ab initio.
Damages & Quantum — Money Had and Received — Restitution to Prevent Unjust Enrichment
Where one person receives money from another in circumstances where in equity and good conscience it does not belong to them, the law implies an obligation to refund it; this restitutionary remedy is available even where the underlying transaction is illegal and notwithstanding negligence on the claimant's part.
Land & Property — Bona Fide Occupant — Section 29 Land Act — Extent of Actual Occupation
A claimant must prove the statutory conditions of bona fide occupancy under section 29 of the Land Act; unchallenged occupation for over twelve years before the 1995 Constitution establishes bona fide occupancy only over the area actually and effectively occupied, not over the whole holding claimed.
Civil Procedure — Memorandum of Appeal — Waiver of Objection by Conduct — Rules 67 and 86 Court of Appeal Rules
A respondent who participates in conferencing on the basis of an amended memorandum of appeal filed without leave waives, by conduct, the right to object to it; a court may decline to strike it out in the interests of justice where no prejudice is shown.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Rulings — No Binding Effect on the Merits of the Main Suit
A ruling on an interlocutory application is determined on different considerations and is incapable of creating a binding precedent or a finding on the merits of the main suit.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Judicature Act s.11
  • Judicature Act s.14
  • Mortgage Act (Cap 229) s.7(1)
  • Registration of Titles Act (Cap 230) s.116
  • Land Act (Cap 227) s.29(1)
  • Land Act (Cap 227) s.29(2)
  • Land Reform Decree 1975 s.4(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.30(1)(a)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.67(1)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.86(1)

Cases cited (17)

  • Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Attorney General v Baliraine (Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2003)
  • Kagga v Kiyimba [1985] UGHCCD
  • Uganda Development Bank v Balondemu [1990-1994] HCB 172
  • Kamugisha v Uganda Development Corporation [2003] UGCA 5
  • Mutaka v Kasasa [1981] HCB 127
  • Lubega v Kawa [2002] UGCA 11
  • Katungi v Kigozi [1980] HCB 101
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] UGSC 2
  • Silver Byaruhanga v Fr. Emmanuel Ruvugwaho and Another [2020] UGSC 31
  • Kanoonya David v Kivumbi & Others (HCCS No. 616 of 2003)
  • Shenoi and Another v Maximor (2005) EA 280
  • Dr. James Kashugyera Tumwine & Anor v Sr. Willie Magara and Anor (HCCS No. 576 of 2004)
  • Fernandes v Noronha [1969] EA 505
  • Uganda Broadcasting Corporation v Sinba (K) Ltd & 2 Ors (Civil Application No. 12 of 2014)
  • M.A. No 1833 of 2017 (Ruling of Hon. Mr. Justice Andrew Bashaija)
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.