Wakilii

Narisi Namaitta and Another v Mategyero Boaz and Another (Civil Appeal No.179 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 392 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second civil appeal from a High Court decision sitting in its appellate jurisdiction
Decision
Appeal dismissed; decisions of the High Court and the Chief Magistrate's Court holding the appellants to be trespassers 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, which is confined to points of law under sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Court of Appeal held that the competency of a ground is judged from the memorandum of appeal alone, not the supporting submissions, and that a trial court's failure to evaluate evidence is itself a point of law. On the merits, it found the first appellate judge correctly applied the law of trespass: an alleged gift of land is ineffective without a deed or registered transfer, and mere possession of a certificate of title in a third party's name confers no legal or equitable interest. The appellants therefore had no interest in the suit land and were trespassers. Appeal dismissed with costs.

Facts

The respondents, as administrators of the estate of the late Rev. Canon Stanley Mategyero, alleged that the deceased had bought land comprised in Rubabo Block 14 Plot 120 from Semu Bazirakakye, the registered proprietor, for UGX 20,000,000. They sued the appellants for a declaration of trespass and that the sale agreement was valid. The appellants contended the sale was illegal because the land had already been gifted to the 2nd appellant's mother, Babweyongera Bazirakakye, and that they held the certificate of title and were in occupation. The registered proprietor testified that he had sold the land to the deceased. No deed of gift or instrument of transfer to the mother was produced. The Chief Magistrate found for the respondents and issued a permanent injunction; the High Court upheld that decision on first appeal. The appellants brought a second appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether ground 1 of the appeal raised a point of law as required on a second appeal under sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. Whether ground 2 was competently framed or was argumentative contrary to rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  3. Whether the first appellate judge erred in law in holding that the appellants were trespassers on the suit land and that the respondents were the legal owners.
  4. Whether the appellants held an equitable interest in the suit land arising from an alleged gift to the 2nd appellant's mother and possession of the certificate of title.

Orders

  • Both preliminary objections overruled.
  • Ground 1 of the appeal fails.
  • Ground 2 of the appeal fails.
  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Second Appeals — Grounds Restricted to Points of Law
On a second appeal to the Court of Appeal under sections 72 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Act, the grounds in the memorandum of appeal must be restricted to points of law; an appellant is precluded from raising grounds founded on fact or on mixed law and fact.
Civil Procedure — Grounds of Appeal — Determined from Memorandum, Not Submissions
Whether a ground of appeal complies with rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules and raises a point of law is determined by examining the statement of complaint in the memorandum of appeal in isolation; the arguments and submissions made in support of a ground do not form part of the ground and cannot convert a point of law into one of mixed law and fact.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Failure to Evaluate Evidence as a Point of Law
A trial court's failure to properly evaluate the evidence is a point of law on appeal, because an appellate court has a duty to re-evaluate the evidence as a whole to ensure the findings were not the product of legal misdirection causing a miscarriage of justice.
Land & Property — Trespass to Land — Elements
Trespass to land is constituted where entry on the land is without the consent of the owner; the claimant must prove that the disputed land belonged to it, that the defendant entered upon it, and that the entry was unlawful in that it was made without permission or that the defendant had no claim, right or interest in the land.
Land & Property — Equitable Interest — Gift of Land Requires Deed or Registered Transfer
A gift of land is not effective to pass a legal or equitable interest unless made by deed, or, where the title is registered, by a registered transfer; mere possession of a certificate of title registered in a third party's name, without a transfer instrument, confers no legal or equitable interest and a purely possessory claim amounts to trespass.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.72
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.74
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.86(1)

Cases cited (14)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Mitwalo Magyengo v Medad Mutyaba (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1996)
  • Lubanga Jamada v Dr. Ddumba Edward (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2011)
  • Celtel Uganda Limited v Zain Uganda & Kanungi (Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2013)
  • Akinyemi Vs Odu'a Inv. Co. Ltd, [2012] 17 NWLR (pt. 1329) 209 at 230-231
  • Justine E.M.N Lutaaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Co. (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Sheikh Mohammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1987)
  • John Katarikawe Versus William Katwiremu [1977] HCB 210 At 214
  • Ojwang v Wilson Bagonza (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2002)
  • Turinawe & 4 Others v Eng. Turinawe & Anor (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2018)
  • Areet Sam v Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2005)
  • Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995)
  • Bwetegaine and Anor V Kadooba (supra)
  • Nassozi v Nsubuga (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2014)
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.