Wakilii

Akena Jabina & Another v Odong (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHC 59 · 2019 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court judgment in a land ownership and trespass dispute
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs. Trial court judgment upholding respondent's ownership of the disputed land and permanent injunction restraining appellants from trespass affirmed.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's finding that the respondent owned the disputed land and that the appellants were trespassers. The court held that a sketch map drawn at the locus in quo is demonstrative, not substantive evidence. Although the trial court erred by recording evidence from persons who had not testified in court, this did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. The court validated the draft memorandum of appeal, holding that procedural rules should be relaxed where strict application would defeat substantive justice and the error did not prejudice the other party.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs. Trial court judgment upholding respondent's ownership of the disputed land and permanent injunction restraining appellants from trespass affirmed.

Facts

The respondent claimed ownership of approximately 700 hectares of land at Latinyer village inherited from his late father, who acquired it in 1972. He alleged that the appellants, whose land was adjacent and separated by Lamino-Onger Stream, crossed that stream and trespassed onto his land in 2008 after the parties returned from IDP camps. The appellants denied the claim, asserting they had occupied their respective portions since the 1970s and that the respondent's land was located two miles away at Omukitunge village. The trial court visited the locus in quo, identified the stream as the common boundary, found the appellants had crossed it, and entered judgment for the respondent awarding general damages of UGX 10,000,000 and a permanent injunction. The appellants appealed, challenging the determination of the boundary, the finding of trespass, and procedural irregularities at the locus in quo.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in finding that the appellants trespassed onto the respondent's land in 2008.
  2. Whether the trial Magistrate erred by recording evidence from witnesses at the locus in quo who had not testified in court and by failing to prepare a proper sketch map.
  3. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in determining the boundary between the parties' land.
  4. Whether a draft memorandum of appeal is a valid document to commence an appeal.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal and trial awarded to the respondent, to be met by the appellants.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Locus in Quo — Sketch Map — Nature of Evidence
A sketch map drawn at the locus in quo is not substantive evidence but only demonstrative of the oral evidence given thereat. Being only demonstrative evidence, it is neither testimony nor substantive evidence. The Court is not free to draw independent conclusions from it as a demonstrative aid but is only free to utilise it to better understand or remember the evidence of a witness from which the actual conclusions of fact will be drawn. It can never take the place of real or oral evidence. Failure to prepare a sketch map is not fatal if the oral evidence is clear.
Evidence — Locus in Quo — Recording Evidence from Non-Witnesses — Miscarriage of Justice
A court visiting the locus in quo is meant to check on the evidence by the witnesses, and not to fill gaps in their evidence for them, lest the court may run the risk of turning itself a witness in the case. Recording evidence from persons who did not testify in court is an error. However, the improper admission of evidence is not ground for reversal if there was sufficient evidence independently of the improperly admitted evidence to justify the decision, or if the error did not result in a miscarriage of justice.
Civil Procedure — Commencement of Appeal — Draft Memorandum of Appeal — Validity
A draft memorandum of appeal is not a document ordinarily capable of commencing a civil appeal since it is unknown to the law. However, where a document titled 'Draft Memorandum of Appeal' meets all other requirements of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules save for the single word 'Draft' in its heading, and where strict application of the rules would be tantamount to having undue regard to technicalities as opposed to the administration of substantive justice, the court may validate the memorandum in the interest of justice.
Civil Procedure — Procedural Rules — Relaxation — Interest of Justice
The Civil Procedure rules should be followed and only for the most persuasive of reasons may they be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. While litigation is not a game of technicalities, every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure orderly and speedy administration of justice. Waiving strict compliance with the rules in the interest of justice should be extraordinary relief granted for the most compelling reasons where strict application of the rules would yield a result contrary to the spirit, intent or purpose of the administration of justice whose overriding objective is the just, expeditious, proportionate, efficient and affordable resolution of civil disputes.
Land & Property — Boundaries — Discrepancies Between Description and Physical Features — Locus in Quo
Where land is described by its geographical location or such other similar physical features, when there is a discrepancy between such description and the actual land shown to court during its visit to the locus in quo, the latter prevails. When the verbal description contains details that cannot be reconciled with the physical features on the ground, the physical features will prevail.
Land & Property — Boundaries — Question of Law and Fact
The question of what is a boundary line is a matter of law, but the question of where a boundary line, or a corner, is actually located is a question of fact.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (12)

  • Father Nanensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tiberaga (SCCA No. 17 of 2000)
  • Lovinsa Nankya v. Nsibambi [1980] HCB 81
  • Mayanja Grace v. Yusufu Luboyera [1977] HCB 133
  • Muhutu George v Mpengere Bulasiyo [1982] HCB 55
  • Westmont Land (Asia) BHD v The Attorney General [1998-2000] HCB 46
  • Esso Petroleum Company Limited v. Southport Corporation [1956] AC 218
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v. Obene [1990-94] EA 88
  • Fernandes v. Noroniha [1969] EA 506
  • De Souza v. Uganda [1967] EA 784
  • Yeseri Waibi v. Edisa Byandala [1982] HCB 28
  • Nsibambi v. Nankya [1980] HCB 81
  • Walleigh v. Emery, 163 A.2d 665, 668 (Pa. Super. 1960)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Akena Jabina & Another v Odong (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2018) [2019] UGHC 59 (12 September 2019)
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.