Wakilii

Abwola Vicent v Oyet Bosco and Another (Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 373 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court appellate decision in a customary land ownership dispute
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the High Court judgment in favour of the respondents was confirmed and upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (treatment unverified) 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 limited to questions of law, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the High Court's finding that customary land had been gifted inter vivos to the respondents' grandmother and passed to her descendants. There was evidence to support the finding of an invitation to settle and continuous, exclusive occupation for over thirty years, which adequately satisfied the elements of a gift (intention, delivery, acceptance). The first appellate court was entitled to take judicial notice of the LRA insurgency under section 56(1)(i) of the Evidence Act to explain the family's temporary displacement. The High Court correctly applied the law and evaluated the evidence; its judgment was confirmed.

Facts

The appellant sued in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Kitgum at Pader claiming to be the rightful owner of approximately 150 acres of customary land at Parakaka Ward, Pader District, which he said he inherited from his grandfather, the late Too Francisco. He alleged that Too Francisco had merely allowed his sister, Akello Terezina (the respondents' grandmother), and her son Ongom Bernard (the respondents' father) to reside on the land temporarily. The respondents contended that they were born on the suit land in 1966 and that their father had settled there at the invitation of his maternal uncle, the family living on the land for over thirty years until displaced by the LRA insurgency, after which they returned in 2011. The trial magistrate declared the appellant the owner and ordered the respondents' eviction. On appeal, the High Court reversed that decision, finding the land had been given to Akello Terezina as a gift inter vivos and succeeded to by the respondents, and dismissed the appellant's suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the first appellate judge erred in law by entering judgment on wrong facts, in particular by failing to distinguish the land on which the respondents' grandmother settled from the place where she was buried.
  2. Whether the first appellate judge wrongly took judicial notice of the existence of the LRA insurgency in Northern Uganda to conclude that the respondents' family was forced off the suit land.
  3. Whether the first appellate judge erred in holding that the requirements of a valid gift inter vivos were fulfilled in respect of the suit land.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed in its entirety for lack of merit.
  • The Judgment of the High Court in Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2016 is confirmed and upheld.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs in this appeal and in the courts below.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Second Appeal — Limits on Re-evaluation of Findings of Fact
On a second appeal the Court of Appeal is precluded from questioning the trial court's findings of fact where there was evidence to support them, and may interfere only where it considers there was no evidence to support the finding of fact, that being a question of law.
Customary Land — Gift Inter Vivos — Elements and Proof
A valid gift inter vivos requires an intention to give, delivery of the property, and acceptance by the donee, with the donor divesting all control and the donee acquiring full dominion; under Acholi customary law land may be transferred by such a gift, and long, continuous and exclusive possession by the donee and successors can establish that the elements were satisfied.
Customary Land — Permissive Occupation versus Ownership
Occupation of land by express or implied permission cannot ripen into ownership by prescription, but occupation for an entire generational interval (some 25–30 years) free of any restriction imposed by the original owner is consistent with a gift of land rather than a mere licence to use it.
Judicial Notice — Matters of Public Notoriety
Under section 56(1)(i) of the Evidence Act a court may take judicial notice of matters of public notoriety, and a well-documented insurgency such as the Lord's Resistance Army conflict in Northern Uganda is a notorious historical event of which a court may take judicial notice to explain the temporary displacement of an affected family.
Alternative Justice System — Customary Land Disputes Among Relatives
Disputes among close relatives over common customary land should, as a matter of practice and consistent with Article 126(2)(d) of the Constitution, first be referred to elders, mediators and the Alternative Justice System; trial courts should inquire whether reconciliation was attempted and failed before litigation proceeds.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.72
  • Evidence Act s.56(1)(i)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 32(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(d)

Cases cited (11)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Nassozi & Anor v Kalule (Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2012) [2014] UGHCFD 13
  • M/s Fang Min v Belex Tours & Travel Ltd [2015] UGSC 12
  • Julius Rwabinumi v Hope Bahimbisomwe (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009)
  • Olweny Alfred v Otema (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2019) [2020] UGHC 187
  • Katumba Byaruhanga v Edward Kyewalabye Musoke [1998] UGCA 56
  • Attorney General v Baliraine (Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2003) [2013] UGCA 9
  • Mohamed Ali Hassan v R (1941) 8 EACA 76
  • R v Hassan Bid Said (19421 9 E CL 62
  • Pioneer Construction Co Ltd v British American Tobacco (HCCS No. 209 of 2008) [2013] UGCommC 107
  • Ovoya Poli v Wakunga [2017] UGHCLD 246
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.