Wakilii

Akison & Another v Soyekwo & Another (Civil Appeal 148 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 40 · 2025 Appeal Allowed 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 trespass and recovery suit
Decision
Appeal allowed, judgment of lower court set aside, appellants declared rightful owners of the suit land

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time 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 allowed the appeal, finding that the trial magistrate wrongly believed the respondents' uncorroborated and contradictory evidence while ignoring the well-corroborated evidence of the appellants. The court struck out two grounds of appeal for being too general and not specifying points wrongly decided. On the locus in quo issue, the court found the visit was properly conducted. The appellants were declared the rightful owners of the suit land.

Outcome

Appeal allowed, judgment of lower court set aside, appellants declared rightful owners of the suit land

Facts

The respondents sued for trespass and recovery of unregistered customary land in Kween District, claiming their fathers allowed the appellants' grandfather to temporarily stay on the land in 1961 when he fell sick. The grandfather died shortly after and was buried on the land. The respondents alleged they occupied the land until displaced by Karamajong insurgency in 1979-1982, returning in 2000, when the appellants claimed ownership. The appellants contended their father Musa Takweny inherited the land from their grandfather Takwenyi Malinga who died in 1961, and the family occupied it from 1954 until displaced by insurgency in 1979, returning in 2000. The trial court found for the respondents. On appeal, the respondents' witnesses gave contradictory evidence about when the appellants' father arrived on the land (1960 or after 1965), when he died (1960 or 1961), when trespass occurred (2000, 2005, or 2008), and whether there was a grave on the land. The appellants' evidence was corroborated by defense witnesses who testified that the appellants' father was in possession by 1957 and was sued twice that year over boundary disputes concerning the same land.

Issues

  1. Whether grounds of appeal that are too general and do not specify points wrongly decided should be struck out.
  2. Whether the trial magistrate erred in believing uncorroborated evidence of the respondents and rejecting the appellants' evidence.
  3. Whether the trial magistrate conducted the locus in quo visit in a proper manner.
  4. Who is the rightful owner of the disputed customary land.

Orders

  • Grounds 1 and 2 of the appeal struck off the court record.
  • Ground No. 3 answered in the affirmative.
  • Ground No. 4 answered in the negative.
  • Appeal partially succeeds.
  • The judgment, decision and orders of the lower court are hereby set aside.
  • It is declared that the Appellants are the rightful owners of the suit land.
  • Costs in this court and the lower court are awarded to the Appellants.

Rules and key headnotes

Grounds of Appeal — Requirement for Specificity
A memorandum of appeal must set forth concisely and under distinct heads the grounds of objection to the decree appealed from without argument or narrative. A ground of appeal must challenge a holding or ratio decidendi and must specify the points which were wrongly decided. Grounds that are too general and allow the appellant to go on a fishing expedition will be struck out.
Evaluation of Evidence — Contradictions and Corroboration
Where a party's witnesses give multiple serious and material contradictions on key facts, and the opposing party's evidence is well corroborated by independent witnesses, an appellate court is entitled to find that the trial court erred in believing the uncorroborated contradictory evidence.
Customary Land — Proof of Ownership through Possession
Where parties adduce no documentation to prove ownership of customary land, the court must resort to evidence of possession to determine the rightful owner. Evidence that a party was in possession sufficiently early to be sued over boundary disputes is cogent evidence of ownership.
Locus in Quo — Proper Procedure
The purpose of a visit to the locus in quo is to check on the evidence given by witnesses, not to fill gaps in their evidence or turn the court into a witness. Where the evidence in court is clear, the court may visit locus in quo solely to acquaint itself with the actual size, location, neighborhood and activities on the land. Provided both parties, their witnesses and advocates are present, a sketch map is drawn, and parties are given the chance to explain their understanding of the ground, the visit is properly conducted even if no formal evidence on oath is adduced at the locus.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (5)

  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank (SCCA No. 04 of 2006)
  • National Insurance Corporation v Pelican Air Services (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2003)
  • Sietico v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 31 of 1995)
  • Arim Felix Clive v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (CACA No. 101 of 2013)
  • Alule v Agwe (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2014)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Akison & Another v Soyekwo & Another (Civil Appeal 148 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 40 (10 February 2025)
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.