Wakilii

Adeke Bernadetta and Kulume Arupina v Omudu Miriam and Omudu Benjamin (Civil Appeal No.255 of 2016)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 9 · 2026 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court decision that, on first appeal, had reversed a Magistrate Grade 1 judgment in a land trespass and ownership suit.
Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and the trial Magistrate's judgment (declaring the appellants the lawful owners) reinstated.

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

On a second appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the first appellate judge failed to properly re-appraise the evidence: she disbelieved the appellants' principal witness without evaluating the corroborating testimony of PW2 and PW3, wrongly faulted that witness for concealing her parentage, and rested her finding of abandonment of the land on evidence that was never proved. The respondents' alternative claim of adverse possession was rejected because their homes and graves lay outside the land's boundaries and they had only scattered, freshly dug gardens. The trial magistrate, having observed the witnesses and visited the locus, had properly appraised the evidence. The appeal succeeded, the High Court judgment was set aside, and the trial magistrate's judgment was reinstated.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and the trial Magistrate's judgment (declaring the appellants the lawful owners) reinstated.

Facts

The appellants sued the respondents in the Magistrate Grade 1 Court at Katakwi over 80 gardens at Adacar Village, claiming the land by inheritance from their late father Eukak, who had inherited it from Zakayo Adioruk. The appellants said they enjoyed quiet possession until they fled the area in the 1990s due to insecurity from cattle rustlers, and that the respondents interfered with their occupation when they returned in 2013. The respondents claimed the land was originally owned by Yafesi Okure, donated to his son Omudu Sebastian, and that the appellants' mother (Ogel) had only been allowed to settle temporarily before abandoning it. The trial magistrate visited the locus, found the respondents' homes and relatives' graves lay outside the land's boundaries and that their scattered fresh gardens were staged, and declared the appellants the lawful owners. On first appeal the High Court reversed that decision, finding Ogel had abandoned the land so the interest reverted to the respondents.

Issues

  1. Whether the first appellate court subjected the whole of the evidence on record to a fresh and exhaustive scrutiny.
  2. Whether the first appellate judge misdirected herself on the law and reached wrong conclusions.
  3. What remedies, if any, are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The judgment of the High Court is set aside.
  • The judgment of the trial Magistrate is reinstated.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs in this Court.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Second Appeal — Duty of the Court under s.72(1) Civil Procedure Act
On a second appeal the court does not re-evaluate the evidence afresh as a first appellate court would; its task is confined to deciding whether the first appellate court, in approaching its function, applied the relevant principles properly.
Civil Procedure — First Appellate Court — Duty to Re-appraise the Whole Evidence
A first appellate court must reconsider, evaluate and draw its own conclusions on the whole of the evidence; a failure to evaluate material corroborating testimony amounts to a failure to properly re-appraise the record and vitiates its conclusions.
Evidence — Credibility and Demeanour — Deference to Trial Court
Where a question of credibility turns on the manner and demeanour of witnesses, an appellate court that did not see the witnesses must be guided by, and attach due weight to, the impression formed by the trial court that observed them.
Evidence — Unchallenged Evidence — Presumption of Truth
Evidence that is not discredited or dented in cross-examination carries credibility, and a fact not put in issue (such as how a donor came to own the land) is presumed to be true.
Land & Property — Adverse Possession — Proof of Actual Hostile Possession
A claim of ownership by adverse possession fails where the claimant's homes and graves lie outside the land's boundaries and the only signs of occupation are scattered, freshly dug gardens, since this does not establish actual, open and uninterrupted possession for the requisite period.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (7)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Adeke Bernadetta and Kulume Arupina v Omudu Miriam and Omudu Benjamin (Civil Appeal No.255 of 2016) [2026] UGCA 9 (11 February 2026)
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.