Wakilii

Asiimwe & 4 Others v Kezia & Another (Civil Appeal 5 of 1993)

High Court · [1994] UGHC 111 · 1994 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Magistrate Grade I, Fort Portal, challenging judgment on land ownership dispute
Decision
Respondents evicted from the disputed land; permanent injunction granted restraining them from interfering with appellants' possession

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

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial magistrate failed to properly evaluate evidence on the crucial issue of land location. The Court held that the appellants had lawfully acquired the land through the Uganda Land Commission and that the respondents' objections arose only after the appellants had taken possession, indicating lack of bona fides. A permanent injunction was granted in favour of the appellants.

Outcome

Respondents evicted from the disputed land; permanent injunction granted restraining them from interfering with appellants' possession

Facts

The appellants claimed ownership of land in Mpara Sub County, Kyaka County, Kabarole District, alleging lawful acquisition through the Uganda Land Commission. The respondents, Kezia Isingoma and her daughter Evari Karukana, also claimed the land. One of the original plaintiffs, David Murwani (father to some appellants), died during proceedings. The trial court ruled against the appellants. The central factual dispute concerned the location of the land parcels claimed by each party. The evidence suggested the respondents only raised objections after the appellants had taken possession of the land.

Issues

  1. Whether the evidence regarding the location of the disputed land was properly evaluated by the trial court.
  2. Whether the appellants lawfully acquired the land through the Uganda Land Commission.
  3. Whether the respondents' claim to the land was bona fide.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Order of eviction made against the respondents.
  • Permanent injunction granted in favour of the appellants.
  • Costs awarded to the appellants.
  • No order for damages.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Duty of Appellate Court — Re-evaluation of Evidence
It is the duty of an appellate court to evaluate the evidence itself and draw its own conclusions where it is apparent that evidence has not been properly evaluated by the trial court.
Appeals — First Appeal — Nature of Appellate Review
A first appeal is by way of a retrial. The appellate court must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions, though it should bear in mind that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses and should make due allowance for this.
Land Acquisition — Uganda Land Commission — Bona Fides of Competing Claims
Where a party lawfully acquires land through the Uganda Land Commission and objections are raised only after the acquiring party has taken possession, such belated objections indicate that the objector's claim is not bona fide.

Cases cited (1)

  • SBI v Asso. Lorenz Bolt Co. 10 EACA 123

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Asiimwe & 4 Others v Kezia & Another (Civil Appeal 5 of 1993) [1994] UGHC 111 (23 August 1994)
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.