Wakilii

Katooro Jamada and Others v Kaganda George William (Civil Appeal No. 117 of 2014)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 271 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal from a High Court decision exercising appellate jurisdiction in a land trespass and ownership dispute
Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment decreeing the suit land to the Respondent 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 restricted to matters of law, the Court held that grounds 1 and 4, which merely alleged improper evaluation of evidence without specifying the points wrongly decided, offended Rule 86 and were struck out; ground 2, concerning the weight given to exhibits, raised a question of fact and was struck out under section 72 CPA. On ground 3, the Court held that a court cannot grant relief that was not pleaded, so the trial Magistrate erred in decreeing ownership to the Appellants who denied owning the land and made no counterclaim. The Appellants, having failed to establish any right to possession, were trespassers. The first appellate court had properly re-evaluated the evidence. Appeal dismissed with costs.

Facts

The Respondent claimed the Appellants trespassed on and fenced off his land at Nyakabara, Kyenjojo Town Council. He averred he bought the land as a kibanja from Mubiru Joseph in 2000, then applied for and obtained a lease from the District Land Board, supported by an application, inspection report and lease offer. Mubiru had occupied the land from 1972, having obtained it from the Parish Chief, until he sold to the Respondent. The Appellants denied owning the land, contending it belonged to the Kyenjojo Muslim Community / Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (UMSC), an entity not joined to the suit. Evidence, including a physical layout plan and the testimony of a witness whose husband had donated the upper land to the Muslim Community in 1961, showed UMSC's land lay above Tank Hill Road, separate from the suit land below. The trial Magistrate dismissed the claim and declared the Appellants owners. The High Court, on appeal, reversed and decreed the land to the Respondent on the basis of his predecessor's adverse possession.

Issues

  1. Whether the grounds of appeal raised matters of law cognisable on a second appeal under section 72 of the Civil Procedure Act and Rule 32(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. Whether grounds of appeal that merely allege improper evaluation of evidence without specifying the points wrongly decided comply with Rule 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  3. Whether the first appellate court properly re-evaluated the evidence and was correct in decreeing the suit land to the Respondent.
  4. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in law by decreeing ownership of the suit land to the Appellants when they neither pleaded nor prayed for ownership.

Orders

  • Grounds 1 and 4 of the appeal struck out for offending Rule 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  • Ground 2 of the appeal struck out for relating only to facts contrary to section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
  • Ground 3 found devoid of merit.
  • The judgment and orders of the High Court upheld.
  • Appeal dismissed with costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Second Appeal — Scope of Court of Appeal's jurisdiction under section 72 CPA and Rule 32(2)
On a second appeal from a decision of the High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal is restricted to matters of law; it may appraise the inferences of fact drawn by the trial court but cannot hear additional evidence or question findings of fact supported by evidence.
Civil Procedure — Memorandum of Appeal — Rule 86 — Specificity of grounds
A ground of appeal that merely alleges the lower court wrongly evaluated the evidence or reached a decision unsupported by evidence, without specifying the particular points alleged to have been wrongly decided, offends Rule 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules and is incompetent.
Evidence — Weight of evidence — Distinction from admissibility — Question of fact
The weight a judge accords to an exhibit is a matter of judgment and assessment of fact, not a matter of law; where admissibility is not challenged, the weight given to evidence cannot found a second appeal restricted to matters of law.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Relief on un-pleaded matter
A court cannot grant a party relief that it has not claimed in its pleadings; founding a decision or relief on an un-pleaded matter is an error of law, and a court may not declare a defendant the owner of land where the defendant denied ownership and made no counterclaim.
Tort Law — Trespass to land — Onus on party asserting right to possession
Where a defendant who has entered land fails to establish a claimed right to possession, that entry is wrongful and amounts to trespass; the onus lies on the entrant to establish a right to possession.
Land & Property — Adverse possession — Rights acquired by long undisturbed occupation
Long undisturbed occupation of land confers on the occupant rights under the Limitation Act and the Land Act through the doctrine of adverse possession, and such interest may be passed on to a purchaser.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 32(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Rule 86(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.72(1)
  • Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.101(1)
  • Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.64(e)
  • Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.73
  • Limitation Act
  • Land Act
  • Registration of Titles Act

Cases cited (14)

  • Kafeero Sentongo v Sozi (Civil Appeal No. 173 of 2012) [2021] UGCA 46
  • Mitwalo Magyengo v Medadi Mutyaba (SCCA No. 11 of 1996) [1998] KALR 136
  • John Baingana Paul v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2010) [2016] UGCA 1
  • Osman Yusufu v Dramadri Joel & 5 Ors (Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2018)
  • M/s Tatu Naiga & Co. Emporium v Vergee Bros Ltd (SCCA No. 8 of 2000) [2002] UGSC 20
  • N.I.C v Pelican Services (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2003)
  • Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 31 of 1995)
  • Arim Felix v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 101 of 2013)
  • Lubengo Jamada v Dr. Ddumba (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2011)
  • Attorney General v Paul Ssemwogerere & Anor (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2004)
  • Julius Rwabinumi v Hope Bahimbisomwe (SCCA No. 10 of 2009)
  • Barko v Mustapha [1964] GLR 78
  • Justine E.M.N. Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Co. Ltd (SCCA No. 11 of 2002)
  • Lugazi Progressive School & Anor v Serunjogi & Anor [2001-2005] 2 HCB 12
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.