Wakilii

Zubeida Abdulrarhman v Oyee Leonard and Others (Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2018)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 289 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court decision sitting in its appellate jurisdiction, the High Court having reversed a Grade One Magistrate's judgment in a land suit
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the judgment of the first appellate court (High Court) upheld; each party to bear own costs

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 land dispute, the Court of Appeal held that the appellant, having asserted in her plaint that she was a Ugandan citizen, bore the burden of proving that citizenship; the first appellate Judge was right to place it on her. Because the respondents had disputed her citizenship in their written statement of defence, the issue was raised in the pleadings and the first appellate court, not confined to the memorandum of appeal, could properly determine it. As a non-citizen the appellant could not hold land under customary tenure but only as a leasehold under Article 237(2)(c); her customary claim was untenable. The limitation and adverse-possession grounds were not addressed. Appeal dismissed; each party to bear own costs.

Facts

The appellant sued the respondents in the Adjumani Grade One Magistrate's Court for recovery of approximately two acres of land at Abiricaku village, Adjumani Town Council. She claimed the land originally belonged to her late father, Abdulrahman Wani, who she said had acquired it from a customary owner and settled there until his death. In her plaint she described herself as a female adult Ugandan. The respondents, in their written statement of defence, asserted that the appellant's father was a Sudanese national who had settled on neighbouring land as a refugee and returned to Sudan, where he died in 1983; they disputed the appellant's Ugandan citizenship. The appellant testified that she was a Bari by tribe and a Ugandan citizen, and that her family fled to Sudan in 1979 and returned in 1986. The Magistrate found for the appellant; on first appeal the High Court reversed, finding for the respondents on the basis that the appellant had not proved her citizenship.

Issues

  1. Whether the first appellate Judge misdirected himself on the burden of proof by holding that the burden of proving the appellant's Ugandan citizenship lay on the appellant.
  2. Whether the first appellate Judge erred in raising and resolving the issue of the appellant's citizenship when it had not been framed as an issue at trial.
  3. Whether the first appellate Judge erred in finding that the appellant's title to the land had been extinguished by limitation.
  4. Whether the first appellate Judge erred in finding that the third respondent had acquired the suit land through adverse possession.

Orders

  • The appeal fails.
  • The judgment of the first appellate Court is upheld.
  • Each party to bear their own costs before this Court.

Key headnotes

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Party Asserting the Affirmative
The burden of proving a fact lies on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue; a plaintiff who asserts in her plaint that she is a Ugandan citizen bears the burden of proving that citizenship, notwithstanding that the opposing party has disputed it.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Determination of an Issue Raised in Pleadings but Not Framed at Trial
Under Order 43 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules a High Court hearing an appeal is not confined to the grounds in the memorandum of appeal and may rest its decision on a matter raised in the pleadings, provided the party affected has had a sufficient opportunity to contest the case on that ground.
Land & Property — Land Tenure — Capacity of Non-Citizens to Hold Customary Land
Under Article 237(2)(c) of the 1995 Constitution a non-citizen may acquire only a leasehold interest in land and cannot hold land under customary tenure; accordingly a non-citizen's claim to be the customary owner of land is untenable.
Civil Procedure — Second Appeal — Scope of Review
On a second appeal the court is precluded from questioning the trial court's findings of fact where there was evidence to support them, and its function is to examine whether the first appellate court properly applied the principles governing a first appellate review.

Legislation cited (19)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 32(2)
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.72
  • Evidence Act Cap 6 s.101
  • Evidence Act Cap 6 s.102
  • Evidence Act Cap 6 s.103
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 10(a)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Third Schedule
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 237(1)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 237(2)(c)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 237(3)
  • Land Act Cap 227 s.40
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 Rule 2
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 Rule 6
  • Limitation Act s.5
  • Limitation Act s.6
  • Limitation Act s.10
  • Limitation Act s.11(1)
  • Limitation Act s.16
  • Limitation Act s.21(1)(c)

Cases cited (10)

  • Henry Kifamunte v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • R v Hassan bin Said (1942) 9 EACA 62
  • Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
  • Julius Rwabinumi v Hope Ahimbisimwe (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009)
  • Fang Min v Belex Tours and Travel Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2013)
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1992)
  • Attorney General v Paul Semwogerere and Zachary Olum (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2004)
  • Hotel International v Administrator of the Estate of Robert Kavuma (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1995)
  • Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd v Grand Imperial Hotel Ltd
  • Uganda Railways Corporation v Ekwaru D.O. and 5104 Others (Civil Appeal No. 185 of 2007)
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.