Wakilii

Aijukye v Kaddu (Civil Appeal 7 of 2016)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 283 · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff (in Part) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for trespass and recovery of land
Decision
Plaintiff's action against the defendant succeeds in part. Matter referred to the Registrar General for a public hearing, fresh survey, and examination of title authenticity with report to be filed within 45 days.

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

Held that while the defendant's right of action against the plaintiff's predecessor in title for any irregularity in the creation of plot 456 in 1991 was barred by limitation, the plaintiff's 2016 action for trespass was within time, running from 2006 when the defendant's special certificate of title for plot 437 was issued. The dispute arose from inaccurate surveys and title entries rather than a kibanja claim. Court ordered the Registrar General to conduct a public hearing for affected plot owners and a fresh survey to correct the errors in the area schedule and boundaries.

Outcome

Plaintiff's action against the defendant succeeds in part. Matter referred to the Registrar General for a public hearing, fresh survey, and examination of title authenticity with report to be filed within 45 days.

Facts

In 2010, the plaintiff alleged the defendant trespassed on his land comprised in Kibuga Block 27 Plot 456, which the plaintiff had acquired in 1991. The defendant erected structures using timber harvested from trees cut on the land. The defendant denied trespass, claiming his father's kibanja on Plot 437 was on land he had occupied before the plaintiff acquired Plot 456. The defendant contended that if there was overlap, it resulted from survey errors by the plaintiff's predecessor in title. Survey evidence revealed that Plot 456 encroached on Plot 457, while Plot 437 showed discrepancies between the certificate of title (0.44 hectares) and the area schedule (0.40 hectares). The defendant's special certificate of title for Plot 437 was created in 2006. Court found that inaccurate surveys and title entries, rather than kibanja claims, caused the dispute.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff's suit against the defendant is competently before court.
  2. Whether the plaintiff's action is bad in law and barred by limitation.
  3. Whether the defendant is a trespasser on the suit land.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The office of the Registrar General is hereby directed to conduct a public hearing for the occupants of Kibuga Block 27 plots 429, 447, 437, 456 and 457 and/or any others likely to be affected by any appropriate course of action or corrective measures to be taken by that office, including conducting a fresh survey and making the relevant alterations in the boundaries and amendments in accordance with the law.
  • In conducting the exercise, the said office must also specifically bear in mind that the measurements reflected in the title for plot 437 exceed those which appear in the area schedule and also that the developments on plot 456 encroach on plot 457.
  • The Registrar of Titles in exercising those powers is also directed to examine the authenticity of the special certificate of title for plot 437 and establish the circumstances under which it was created.
  • The office is directed to file a report in court on any action taken within a period of 45 days from the date of the public hearing, indicating any corrective action taken.
  • Each plot owner to bear their own costs in the re-survey exercise.
  • The defendant to pay 60% of the costs of this suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Trespass to Land — Burden of Proof — Possessory Interest Required
To succeed in an action for trespass to land, the plaintiff must prove that the disputed land belonged to him, that the defendant entered upon that land, that the entry was unlawful in that it was made without permission, and that the defendant had no claim or right or interest in the land. Trespass to land is a possessory action and the plaintiff is required to prove a possessory interest in land, being actual possession demonstrating exclusive possession and control of the land.
Limitation — Recovery of Land — Time Runs from Dispossession
No action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued to him or her. The right of action is deemed to have accrued on the date of the dispossession. The period of limitation begins to run as against a party from the time the cause of action accrued until when the suit is actually filed. Once a cause of action has accrued, time begins to run immediately as against the plaintiff.
Registration of Titles — Special Certificate of Title — Mandatory Procedures
Where a duplicate certificate of title is lost or destroyed, section 69 of the Registration of Titles Act makes it an obligation that before issuing a special certificate of title, the registrar must give at least one month's notice in the gazette of his or her intention to do so. Any title issued by the office of the Registrar of Titles without following those procedures would be illegally issued. The information appearing on a special certificate of title must be a replica of that which appears in the register book and of every memorandum and endorsement on it.
Limitation — Determining Period of Limitation — Pleadings
In determining the period of limitation, court looks at the pleadings only, and no evidence is needed. However, given the nature and circumstances of a case where survey issues arise, court may be inclined to examine not only the pleadings but also the evidence availed on record.
Land Act — Registrar's Powers — Public Hearing for Title Errors
Section 88 of the Land Act gives powers to the Registrar of Titles to give a notice of not less than 21 days' notice of the intention to take appropriate action in matters of title inaccuracies. The notice is issued to any party likely to be affected by the decision. The Registrar may conduct a public hearing for affected occupants and order a fresh survey and amendments to titles and boundaries in accordance with the law.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (8)

  • Odey & Alex & Anor v Gena & Others (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2017)
  • Tagebuta Geoffrey & Anor v Kagimi (HCCS No. 11 of 2012)
  • Ofwang v Wilson Borgonza (CACA No. 25 of 2002)
  • Sheik Mohammed Lubouta v Kitorro Enterprises Ltd (C.A. No. 4 of 1987)
  • HCCS No. 178 of 2012, Ngudde Mustafa; Justine E.M.N. Luwaga Vs Sterling Civil Engineering Co. SCCA No. 11 of 2002
  • Polygbire (U) Ltd v Matovu Paul & others
  • Madhvani International S.A v Attorney General
  • F v Miramago v Attorney General [1929] HCB 24

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Aijukye_v_Kaddu_(Civil_Appeal_7_of_2016)_[2024]_UGHCLD_283_(13_November_2024)
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.