Sanyu Romina Mary v Hamurwa Town Council and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2024)

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Holding

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. Because the First Respondent occupied the disputed land with the consent of the deceased and his administrators, formalised in a tenancy agreement, there was no dispossession; time never began to run under sections 5 and 6 of the Limitation Act and no adverse or long possession arose. The Appellant's action was for the preservation of her father's estate, not for the recovery of land, and so was not time-barred. A local government cannot acquire private land by long possession; under articles 26 and 237 of the Constitution and the Land Acquisition Act it may only acquire land through compulsory acquisition with prior, fair and adequate compensation, which was not done. Ownership was restored and damages awarded.

Facts

The late Simeo Ruriitwa held 17 hectares of unregistered customary land at Karukara, Hamurwa, including a portion on which a public market had long operated. In 1973 he received a lease offer over the land. His daughters, including the Appellant, were administrators of his estate and claimed beneficial ownership. The local authorities operated the market on part of the land; in June 2010 the administrators and Kabale District Local Government executed a tenancy agreement covering the old market land and adjacent extensions, with rent at 10% of the market tender fees. The Respondents paid rent up to 2013. When the administrators sought to convert the holding to freehold, the titling process was halted in December 2012 on the basis that it wrongly included the market land, which was said to belong to the First Respondent. The administrators sued in the High Court at Kabale, which adjudged the land to the Appellant and awarded mesne profits. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the land had become government land by long possession and that the claim was time-barred. The Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the principles of long and/or adverse possession were in issue before the Court of Appeal.
2. Whether long possession of land by a local government entity can negate the law governing the compulsory acquisition of land under articles 26 and 237 of the Constitution.
3. Whether the Appellant's suit was an action for the recovery of land that was time-barred under sections 5 and 6 of the Limitation Act, or an action for the preservation of an estate falling outside those provisions.
4. Whether the Appellant misled the Respondents into acknowledging her ownership of the disputed land.
5. What remedies, including mesne profits and damages, the Appellant was entitled to.

Orders

• The appeal substantially succeeds and the judgment and orders of the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 191 of 2020 are set aside.
• The Appellant is declared the beneficial owner of 17 hectares of unregistered land at Karukara, Hamurwa Town Council, Rubanda District, including the portion on which Karukara Market is located.
• The Appellant and the First Respondent are at liberty to negotiate for the continued use or acquisition of the old market land, failing which the First Respondent shall give vacant possession within one year of this judgment.
• The Third Respondent is ordered to process a freehold title in respect of the Appellant's land.
• The Appellant is awarded special damages of Ushs. 117,396,600.
• The Appellant is awarded Ushs. 20,000,000 as general damages.
• The damages awards shall attract 8% interest from the date of the trial court's judgment until payment in full.
• A permanent injunction issues restraining the Respondents from alienating any portion of the estate of Simeo Ruriitwa (deceased) without the Appellant's written consent.
• The Appellant is awarded costs in this Court and the courts below.

Key headnotes

Legislation cited (23)

• Constitution of Uganda art.21
• Constitution of Uganda art.26
• Constitution of Uganda art.44
• Constitution of Uganda art.237
• Constitution of Uganda art.286
• Limitation Act, Cap. 290 s.5
• Limitation Act, Cap. 290 s.6(1)
• Limitation Act, Cap. 290 s.6(2)
• Limitation Act, Cap. 290 s.11(1)
• Limitation Act, Cap. 290 s.16
• Land Act s.1
• Land Act s.29(2)(b)
• Land Act s.43
• Land Acquisition Act, Cap. 235
• Evidence Act, Cap. 8 s.110
• Succession Act s.188
• Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 282 s.7
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10 r.102(c)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10 r.30(1)
• Public Lands Act 1969 s.1
• Land Reform Decree 1975 s.1
• Land Reform Decree 1975 s.2(1)
• UK Limitation Act 1980 s.15

Cases cited (19)

• Attorney General v Osotraco Limited [2005] UGCA 1
• Uganda National Roads Authority v Irumba Asumani & Another [2015] UGSC 22
• Crane Bank Limited v Nipun Narottam Bhatia t20151 UQSG rc
• Makula lnternational v Cardinal Nsubuqa & Another Jl9821 UGCA
• Sinba (K) & 4 Others v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation [2015] UGSC 21
• Kampala District Land Board & Chemical Distributors v National Housing & Construction Corporation [2005] UGSC 20
• Kamunye v Pioneer Assurance Limited [1977] EA 263
• JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd & Another v Graham & Another [2002] 3 All ER 865
• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] UGSC 1
• Joseph Mulota v Silvano Katama [1999] UGSC 4
• Kasila Nanusisi & Others v Francis M. K. Ntabaazi [2006] UGSC 1
• Jiwan v Gohil n U|l 15 EACA 36
• R. G. Patel v Lalji Makanji [1957] EA 314
• Moungu & Sons Transporters Limited v Attorney General & Another [2006] UGSC 5
• Elizabeth Nantongo Wamala v Jolly Kasande & Others [2017] UGSC 21
• Uganda Breweries Limited v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001)
• Robert Cousens v Attorney General [2000] UGSC 2
• Rose Kateeba & Others v Justus Mugyenzi & Others [2025] UGSC 6
• Henry Kifamunte v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)