Kayondo Mohammed v Badru Kisaliita and Others (Civil Appeal 24 of 2014)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 32 · 2026 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

First civil appeal from a High Court judgment in a land sale-agreement dispute

Decision

Appeal dismissed; judgment and orders of the High Court upheld, with costs to the respondents

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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 of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against a High Court finding that he breached an oral agreement to sell the respondents land (Plots 1820 and 1821) forming part of their kibanja, having instead sold Plot 1820 to bonafide purchasers for value without notice. The first ground was struck out for non-compliance with Rule 86(1). The court held that Plot 1819 had been surrendered free of charge and that the Ugx 15,000,000 paid related to Plots 1820 and 1821. Although the trial judge erred by awarding Ugx 20,000,000 general damages without assessing them, the Court of Appeal re-assessed the damages itself and found the award appropriate. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The respondents occupied a customary holding (kibanja) on land at Block 15, Kibuli, originally owned by the late Prince Badru Kakungulu, the appellant's father. After Kakungulu's death the appellant, a beneficiary of the estate, allowed the respondents to survey and obtain title to 50 decimals (Plot 1800). The respondents leased an adjacent strip (Plot 1819) to Total (U) Ltd; the appellant signed a transfer form and an undertaking surrendering Plot 1819 free of charge, but later surveyed and registered it in his own name. The parties orally agreed that the appellant would sell the respondents the remaining part of their kibanja (Plots 1820 and 1821) for Ugx 19,000,000, of which the respondents paid about Ugx 15,000,000. Before payment was completed, the appellant registered Plots 1820 and 1821 in his name and sold Plot 1820 to the second and third defendants, who were found to be bonafide purchasers for value without notice. The respondents sued for specific performance, a refund of the money paid, damages for breach and a permanent injunction.

Issues

Whether the first ground of appeal complied with Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Whether the trial judge erred in holding that the oral agreement and the Ugx 15,000,000 paid related to Plots 1820 and 1821.
Whether the trial judge erred in holding that the appellant breached the sale agreement with the respondents.
Whether the trial judge erred in awarding the respondents Ugx 20,000,000 general damages without assessment or justification.
Whether the trial judge erred in dismissing the appellant's counterclaim.

Orders

Ground 1 of the appeal struck out for non-compliance with Rule 86(1).
The appeal is dismissed.
The judgment and orders of the High Court are upheld.
Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondents.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Memorandum of Appeal — Rule 86(1) — Striking Out Defective Grounds

A ground of appeal that is vague, general, argumentative or narrative and fails to specify concisely the error alleged against the decision offends Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules and must be struck out for raising no intelligible issue.

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Duty of First Appellate Court to Re-evaluate Evidence

A first appellate court must review and rehear the evidence and all materials before the trial court and reach its own conclusions on the facts, bearing in mind that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses and being guided by the trial court's observations on demeanour.

Land & Property — Kibanja / Customary Holding — Surrender of Land Free of Charge

Where a transfer form and an undertaking executed by a landholder disclose no consideration and are inconsistent with a sale, the land is properly treated as surrendered free of charge; once surrender is established the burden shifts to the party asserting a sale to prove otherwise.

Contract Law — Sale of Land — Breach by Sale to Bonafide Purchaser After Part Payment

A vendor who, having received substantial part payment under an oral agreement to sell land, sells that land to a bonafide purchaser for value without notice acts in breach of the agreement with the original purchaser.

Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Judicial Duty to Assess and Give Reasons

Once liability is found and general damages are awardable, the trial judge has a mandatory duty to assess them judicially and give reasons; failure to do so is a material irregularity entitling the appellate court to interfere and make its own assessment, the measure being to restore the injured party to the position it would have occupied but for the wrong.

Legislation cited (2)

Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I No. 13-10 r.30
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I No. 13-10 r.86(1)

Cases cited (14)

Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
Attorney General v Florence Baliraine and Others (Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2003)
Katumba Byaruhanga v Edward Kiwalabye Musoke (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
Celtel (U) Ltd v Karungi (Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2013)
Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] BA 305
Kampala District Land Board and Another v Venansio Babweyakao (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
Bank of Uganda v Tinkamanyire (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2007)
Kakira Sugar Works (1985) Ltd v Turyamureeba (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1992)
Attorney General v Oriental Construction Co. Ltd [1991] UGSC 15
British Transport Commission v Gourley [1956] AC 185
Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1995)
Kyambadde v Mpigi District Administration (1983) HCB 44

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.