Wakilii

Samalie Odongo v Bongomin Richard and 8 Others (Civil Suit 20 of 2013)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 573 · 2026 Judgment for Plaintiff ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaration of ownership, eviction, damages and mesne profits with counterclaim alleging fraudulent acquisition of title and seeking cancellation of certificate of title
Decision
Defendants ordered to be evicted from the suit land; counterclaim dismissed as time-barred

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

The High Court held that the plaintiff's late husband lawfully obtained a certificate of title to the suit land in 1982 under the Land Reform Decree 1975, which vested all land in the Uganda Land Commission. The defendants' counterclaim seeking cancellation of the title on grounds of fraud was time-barred under Limitation Act s.5, as the alleged fraudulent acts occurred in 1971 and the action was brought in 2013, more than 31 years later. The court found no evidence that defendants occupied the suit land after 1971 or that the title was obtained fraudulently. The defendants' entry onto the land from 2012 constituted trespass. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff with orders for eviction, general damages of UGX 100,000,000, and mesne profits of UGX 50,000,000.

Facts

The plaintiff, widow and administrator of the late Barth Abraham Odongo's estate, sued nine defendants for trespass on land registered in her late husband's name in 1982 (LRV 1204 Folio 21 Plot 2 Block 3, Kiloc Palabek Lamwo). The defendants counterclaimed that the land was customary clan land belonging to Labigiriang clan, alleging that the deceased fraudulently obtained the title in 1982 by expanding beyond four acres given to him in 1968/1969, demolishing clan members' buildings, and arresting some in police cells to make the land appear vacant. Evidence showed the deceased was O/C police at Kitgum and established a farm on the land from the early 1970s, constructing permanent structures. The defendants claimed they continued to occupy the land after 1979 but evidence showed their homes were outside the suit land boundaries. From 2012, defendants entered the suit land, cultivated gardens, and built structures without the plaintiff's consent.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit land belongs to the Plaintiff or the Defendants.
  2. Whether the Defendants/counterclaimants' suit is barred by limitation.
  3. Whether the late Bath Abraham Odongo obtained the certificate of title to the suit land fraudulently.
  4. Whether the Defendants are trespassers on the suit land and whether the Plaintiff unlawfully destroyed the Defendants property on the suit land.
  5. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • A declaration that the suit land is customary land belonging to estate of the late Barth Abraham Odongo.
  • A declaration that the Defendants are trespassers on the suit land.
  • An order that the Defendants, their agents and all persons who derive their occupation of the suit land from them should be evicted from the suit land.
  • The Defendants to jointly and severally pay the Plaintiff general damages of UGX 100,000,000.
  • The Defendants to jointly and severally pay the Plaintiff mesne profit of UGX 50,000,000.
  • The Defendants to pay the Plaintiff the costs of this suit and the counterclaim.
  • The Defendants to jointly and severally pay the Plaintiff interest on the general damages and mesne profit at 15% per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • The Defendants to jointly and severally pay the Plaintiff interest on the costs of the suit at 6% per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full.

Key headnotes

Land Registration — Indefeasibility of Title — Certificate of Title as Conclusive Evidence
Under the Torrens system of land registration codified in Registration of Titles Act s.59, a certificate of title once issued is conclusive evidence that the person named in it is the proprietor of the land, and cannot be impeached by reason of any informality or irregularity in the registration process.
Land Registration — Fraud Exception to Indefeasibility — Standard of Proof
A certificate of title procured by fraud is void under Registration of Titles Act s.76, but fraud must be proved strictly with a burden heavier than the ordinary balance of probabilities applied in civil matters, though not as high as the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
Customary Land Tenure — Effect of Land Reform Decree 1975
Under the Land Reform Decree 1975 s.1 and s.3, all land in Uganda became public land administered by the Uganda Land Commission, and customary occupation continued only at sufferance; the Commission had power to grant leases to any person including holders of customary tenure, and there was no legal concept of customary ownership after the Decree came into force.
Limitation of Actions — Recovery of Land — Twelve Year Period
Under Limitation Act s.5, no action to recover land may be brought after twelve years from the date the right of action accrued; where a person has been dispossessed of land, time runs from the date of dispossession, and the limitation period is not postponed until discovery of a certificate of title where the alleged fraudulent acts of dispossession were known at the time they occurred.
Limitation of Actions — Adverse Possession — Continuous Possession Requirement
Under Limitation Act s.11(2), where a right of action to recover land has accrued and the land thereafter ceases to be in adverse possession before the limitation period expires, the right of action is no longer deemed to have accrued and no fresh right accrues until the land is again taken into adverse possession.
Trespass to Land — Elements — Unauthorized Entry and Lawful Possession
Trespass to land occurs when a person makes unauthorized entry upon land and thereby interferes with another person's lawful possession; a registered proprietor holding a certificate of title has legal possession and may maintain an action for trespass and eviction against persons who enter without permission.
Mesne Profits — Definition and Assessment
Mesne profits under Civil Procedure Act s.2(m) are those profits which a person in wrongful possession actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received from the property, together with interest, but excluding profits due to improvements made by the wrongful possessor.

Legislation cited (17)

  • Registration of Titles Act Cap 240 s.59
  • Registration of Titles Act Cap 240 s.76
  • Registration of Titles Act Cap 240 s.160(c)
  • Limitation Act Cap 290 s.5
  • Limitation Act Cap 290 s.6
  • Limitation Act Cap 290 s.11(1)
  • Limitation Act Cap 290 s.11(2)
  • Limitation Act Cap 290 s.25
  • Limitation Act Cap 290 s.3(1)(a)
  • Evidence Act Cap 8 s.101
  • Evidence Act Cap 8 s.102
  • Evidence Act Cap 8 s.103
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.2(m)
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.27
  • Land Reform Decree 1975 s.1
  • Land Reform Decree 1975 s.3
  • Public Land Act 1969

Cases cited (10)

  • Imelda Getriride Basudde Matovu and 5 Others v John Tebyasa Matovu and 6 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 0186 of 2012)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Sebuliba versus Co-operative Bank (1982) HCB 129
  • Miller versus Minister of Pensions (1947)2 ALL ER 372
  • Re Application by Mustapha Ramathan for orders of Certiorari, prohibition and injunction (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 25 of 1996)
  • Hilton Vs Stton Steam Laundry [1946] 1 page 81
  • Fedrick J.K Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd & 5 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2006)
  • Justine E.M.N Lutaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Company Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Sheik Muhammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Simon Mbalire v Moses Mukiibi (High Court Civil Suit No. 85 of 1995)
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.