Wakilii

Acor Mary and Another vs Apuda William (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 2022)

Industrial Court · [2022] UGIC 26 · 2022 Appeal Allowed — Retrial Ordered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from judgment of Chief Magistrate's Court at Katakwi in Civil Suit No. 13 of 2015
Decision
Matter remitted to Chief Magistrate's Court for fresh trial before a different magistrate

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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

The Industrial Court allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial. The trial magistrate committed a mistrial by denying the 2nd appellant the opportunity to testify despite his expressed intention to do so, violating the constitutional principle that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. The trial court also erred by failing to visit the locus in quo where conflicting evidence existed regarding the location, boundaries, and ownership of the disputed land. A fresh trial before a different Chief Magistrate was ordered to ensure all evidence is properly received and assessed.

Outcome

Matter remitted to Chief Magistrate's Court for fresh trial before a different magistrate

Facts

The respondent Apuda William sued the appellants Acor Mary and Inout William in Katakwi Chief Magistrate's Court claiming customary ownership of approximately 3 acres of land at Adungulu village. The respondent claimed his uncle Faustino Ekwam gave him the land and that the appellants trespassed in 2010. The appellants claimed the 1st appellant inherited the land from her husband Otim, who had occupied it since before 1967. The Chief Magistrate found for the respondent, awarding him ownership, vacant possession, general damages of UGX 5,000,000, a permanent injunction, and costs. During trial, the 2nd appellant indicated readiness to testify but was not afforded the opportunity. The trial court did not visit the locus in quo despite conflicting evidence on land location and boundaries.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact when he failed to evaluate the evidence on record.
  2. Whether the denial of the 2nd appellant an opportunity to testify constituted a breach of natural justice.
  3. Whether the trial magistrate should have visited the locus in quo given the conflicting evidence on land ownership.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Orders of the lower trial court set aside.
  • Retrial of the dispute ordered before a different Chief Magistrate.
  • Costs of the appeal to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Right to Be Heard — Natural Justice — Denial of Party's Right to Testify
Where a party to civil proceedings expresses an intention to testify and is ready to give evidence, the trial court must afford that party a reasonable opportunity to do so. Denial of such opportunity constitutes a breach of the constitutional principle that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, and renders the trial a mistrial requiring a fresh hearing.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — First Appellate Court — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
On first appeal, the appellate court must reconsider the evidence on record, evaluate it afresh, and draw its own conclusions, bearing in mind that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses and should make due allowance in that respect. The first appellate court has a duty to rehear the case and make up its own mind, not disregarding the judgment appealed from but carefully weighing and considering it.
Evidence — Locus in Quo — When Visit is Necessary — Land Disputes with Conflicting Evidence
In land disputes where there is manifest conflict in the evidence of the parties as to the identity, location, extent, boundaries, and physical features of the disputed land, it is necessary for the trial court to visit the locus in quo to confirm the accuracy of evidence, eliminate discrepancies, and precisely determine ownership. The purpose of visiting locus is to clarify evidence already received in court, not to fill gaps in evidence or turn the court into a witness.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Magistrates Court Act s.220

Cases cited (14)

  • Selle and Another v Associated Motor-Boat Ltd and Others [1968] EA 123
  • Fredrick J.K. Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd & 5 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Victorious Educational Services Ltd v Mega Consults Ltd (High Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2014)
  • Margret Kato & Joel Kato v Nulu Naluwoga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2013)
  • Coughlan v Cumberland [1898] 1 Ch 704
  • Banco Arab Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 87 of 1998)
  • Kifamute Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • John Kabasomi & Another v Brinhan John (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2012)
  • Fernades v Noroniha [1969] EA 506
  • Nsibambi v Nankya [1980] HCB 81
  • Evelyn Even Gardens NIC LTD and the Hon. Minister, Federal Capital Territory and Two Others, Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/1036/2014; Motion No. FCT/HC/CV/M/5468/2017
  • Othiniel Sheke V Victor Plankshak (2008) NSCQR Vol. 35; pg. 56
  • Akosile Vs. Adeyeye (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1276) pg.263
  • Ezemonye Okwara Vs. Dominic Okwara (1997) 11 NWLR (Pt. 527) pg. 1601

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Acor_Mary_and_Another_vs_Apuda_William_(High_Court_Miscellaneous_Application_No._2_of_2022)_[2022]_UGIC_26_(9_September_2022)
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.