Aisu and 11 Others v Kolir Sub County Local Government and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 34 of 2015)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

Held that the plaintiffs, as bonafide occupants who had settled on customary land for over 40 years, were the rightful owners of their respective portions of the suit land. The defendants fraudulently obtained a certificate of title without notice to the plaintiffs and without following proper legal procedures. The certificate of title was cancelled. No compulsory acquisition occurred, and no damages were awarded as the plaintiffs remained in possession throughout.

Outcome

Certificate of title cancelled; plaintiffs declared lawful owners of their respective portions of the suit land and to remain in possession

Facts

The plaintiffs claimed customary ownership of land in Kolir, Bukedea district, which they and their ancestors had occupied and cultivated since the 1920s. In 1969, Isiagi Silvanus, then a Member of Parliament, sought to establish a cattle ranch on the land and initiated a survey, but did not proceed with the project after the 1971 military coup. In 2000, Kolir Sub County allegedly reclaimed the land from Isiagi and in 2013 obtained a certificate of title over approximately 21.421 hectares. The plaintiffs discovered the title in 2014 when the defendants entered the land, cut trees, and issued eviction notices. The plaintiffs had been in continuous occupation for 40 to 90 years, had established homes, cultivated crops, and buried relatives on the land. The defendants claimed the land was donated to the sub county in the 1920s and that the plaintiffs only came during the 1980s insurgency.

Issues

1. Who is the rightful owner of the suit land?
2. Whether the defendant fraudulently acquired title to the said land and if so, whether the same should be cancelled or impeached.
3. Whether the defendant compulsorily acquired the land without compensating the plaintiffs.
4. Whether the plaintiffs' rights were violated in purported acquisition.
5. What remedies are available?

Orders

• The plaintiffs are individually lawful owners of such pieces of land as are indicated in the sketch map drawn by the court which were fraudulently included in the land title Vol. HQ T8, Folio 1, Plot 231 and 232, Block 5, Kolir Bukedea in Bukedea district measuring approximately 21.421 hectares in the names of the 1st defendant.
• The Land Title Vol. HQ T8, Folio 1, Plot 231 and 232, Block 5, Kolir Bukedea in Bukedea district measuring approximately 21.421 hectares be and is hereby ordered cancelled.
• No case has been found against the 2nd defendant and as such any land in its occupation remain for it.
• No case has been found against the 3rd defendant as its role was merely that of an institution which issued to the 1st defendant a title which was secured by the 1st defendant fraudulently without due process.
• No award of any exemplary or general damages to the plaintiffs is made as none was proved or found relevant.
• Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (17)

• Constitution of Uganda Article 26
• Constitution of Uganda Article 237(2)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 273(3)
• Land Act 1998 s.3
• Land Act 1998 s.24(1)
• Land Act 1998 s.27
• Land Act 1998 s.29(2)
• Land Act 1998 s.42
• Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.64(1)
• Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.64(2)
• Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.77
• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.101(1)
• Land Acquisition Act Cap 226 s.4
• Land Acquisition Act Cap 226 s.5
• Land Acquisition Act Cap 226 s.6
• Civil Procedure Act s.27
• Public Lands Act 1969 s.24(1)

Cases cited (21)

• Nsubuga v Kavuma [1978] HCB 307
• Marko Matovu & 2 Others v Mohammed Sseviri & Another (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1978)
• Betty Nalule v Municipal Council (Civil Suit No. 16 of 2010)
• Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank Limited & Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
• Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd [1994-95] HCB 49
• Volo Michael v Drate Francis Kenyi (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2017)
• Kampala District Land Board & Chemical Distributors v National Housing and Construction Corporation (SCCA No. 2 of 2004)
• Waimiha Saw Milling Co. Ltd v Laine Timber Co Ltd (1926) AC 101
• Assets Co. v Mere Roihi (1905) AC 176
• Sijaaka Nalima v Rebecca Musoke (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1985)
• Uganda Posts and Telecommunications v Lutaaya (Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1995)
• Katarikawe vs Katwiremu
• Justine E.M.N. Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
• Wuta-Ofei v Danquah (1961) 3 All ER 596
• Makula International v His Eminence Nsubuga & Anor (1982) HCB 11
• Adrabo v Madira (Civil Suit No. 24 of 2013) [2017] UGHCLD 102
• Esso Standard (U) Ltd v Semu Amanu Opio (SCCA No. 3 of 1993)
• Onegi Obel & Anor v The Attorney General & Anor (HCCS No. 6 of 2002)
• Phillips v Ward [1956] 1 All ER 874
• David Sejjaka v Rebecca Musoke (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1985)
• David Sejjaka Nalima v Rebecca Musoke (SCCA No. 12 of 1985) [1992] V KALR 132

Cases citing this judgment (3)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Okello William v Okello Simon (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2023)
• Aisu and Others v Kolir Sub- County Local Gorvernment and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 187 of 2022)
• Kadra v Otule and Others (Miscellaneous Application 178 of 2020)

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