Alamiga & Another v Onzima & Another (Civil Appeal 9 of 2019)

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.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's finding that the appellants were trespassers on land owned by the respondents. The court held that the appellants failed to prove they were lawful or bonafide occupants under the Land Act, as they had not occupied the land under repealed tenancy laws, did not enter with the registered owner's consent, and were not in possession when the certificate of title was acquired. Evidence showed the appellants first encroached in 1993, vacated, then re-entered around 2009-2010 without permission, with their homesteads located outside the suit land boundaries.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; eviction order against appellants upheld

Facts

The respondents held a certificate of title to land acquired in 1970. The appellants claimed they were born on the suit land and had occupied it since time immemorial, asserting rights as lawful or bonafide occupants under Article 237(8) of the Constitution and the Land Act. The respondents led evidence that the first appellant first encroached on the suit land in 1993, was asked to vacate and did so, then re-entered around 2008-2009 after the death of the late registered owner. The appellants made further re-entry around 2009-2010. A locus visit found that the appellants' homesteads were outside the suit land boundaries, which comprised only about 5.2 acres of the titled land. The trial court found the appellants to be trespassers and ordered their eviction. The appellants appealed, challenging the evaluation of evidence and the eviction order.

Issues

1. Whether the trial magistrate erred in failing to properly evaluate the evidence showing that the appellants were born on the suit land and wrongly held them to be trespassers when they enjoy security of occupancy.
2. Whether the trial magistrate erred in ordering the eviction of the appellants from the suit land when they enjoy security of occupancy.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Judgement and all orders of the trial court upheld.
• Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (15)

• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 237(8)
• Land Act 1998 s.29(1)
• Land Act 1998 s.29(2)
• Land Act 1998 s.31
• Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.59
• Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.64
• Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.77
• Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.136
• Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.176
• Civil Procedure Act s.79(1)
• Civil Procedure Act s.79(2)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)(e)
• Limitation Act s.5
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 1(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 2

Cases cited (9)

• Maria Onyango Ochola and Others v J. Hannington Wasswa [1996] HCB 43
• Loi Kageni Kiryapawo v Gole Nicholas Davis (SC Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 15 of 2007)
• Hajj Mohammed Nyanzi v Ali Sseggane [1992-1993] HCB 218
• Geoffrey Nangumya T/a Namgumya & Co. Advocates v Security Plus (U) Limited (HCMA No. 858 of 2021)
• Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (SC Civil Application No. 52 of 1995)
• Odye Alex and Another v Gena Yokonanki and Others (HC Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2017)
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (SCCA No. 10 of 1997)
• Justine E.M. Lutaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Co. (SCCA No. 11 of 2002)
• Moya Drift Farm Ltd v Theuri (1973) EA 114

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