Wakilii

Bahemurwaki and 2 Others v Nakate and 2 Others (Civil Appeal 24 of 2022)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 1169 · 2024 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal from judgment of Chief Magistrate dismissing suit for declaration of land ownership and upholding counterclaim
Decision
Judgment of trial Magistrate upholeld — suit land declared property of the Respondents' estate

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

Held that the trial Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence and correctly found that the suit land belonged to the estate of the late John Kahureire from whom the Respondents derive their interest, not the estate of Byeitima Boniface from whom the Appellants claimed. The Appellants' own witness confirmed that Kahureire had occupied and utilized the disputed land, corroborating the Respondents' case. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Judgment of trial Magistrate upholeld — suit land declared property of the Respondents' estate

Facts

The Appellants sued claiming ownership of 2 acres of land at Butema-Kafuransa which they alleged they inherited from their late father Byeitima Boniface, who acquired it by first occupation. They claimed the Respondents trespassed from 2001 by cultivating crops. The Respondents counterclaimed, asserting the land belonged to the estate of the late John Kahureire, husband to the first Respondent, who purchased it in 1965 from the previous owners. The Respondents stated they had occupied and utilized the land peacefully since 1965 until the Appellants encroached in 2001 and 2011. The trial Magistrate found for the Respondents after finding contradictions in the Appellants' evidence. The Appellants appealed on grounds of improper evaluation of evidence and procedural error at locus in quo.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned trial Magistrate erred in finding that John Kahureire bought the suit land in 1965 without cogent evidence.
  2. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in disregarding the evidence of the Appellants as contradictory.
  3. Whether the trial Magistrate failed to follow correct procedure at locus in quo.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Judgment and orders of the trial Magistrate upheld.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — First Appellate Court — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
The duty of the first appellate court is to review the record of evidence for itself in order to determine whether the decision of the trial court should stand, but it should not interfere with the discretion of a trial court unless satisfied that the trial court misdirected itself in some matter and as a result arrived at a wrong decision or unless it is manifest from the case that the court has been clearly wrong in the exercise of discretion resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Standard of Proof in Civil Cases
Section 101 of the Evidence Act imposes the burden of proof on the person alleging a set of facts. The burden of proof is on he or she who alleges and the applicable standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities.
Evidence — Evaluation of Evidence — Weight to be Accorded Contradictory Evidence
Where a party's own witness gives evidence that corroborates the opposing party's case on a material issue, such evidence may properly be relied upon by the trial court to reject that party's claim and forms a proper basis for an appellate court to decline to interfere with the trial court's evaluation.
Civil Procedure — Locus in Quo — Purpose and Procedural Requirements
The purpose of visiting locus in quo is to check on the evidence given by witnesses in court, not to fill in gaps or bolster a party's case. Scanty locus proceedings that fail to record detailed observations do not occasion a miscarriage of justice where the trial court's decision is mainly based on evidence adduced in court and the essential dispute was properly determined.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (7)

  • Stewards of Gospel Talents Ltd v Nelson Onyango (High Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2008)
  • NIC v Mugenyi [1987] HCB 28
  • Fr. Narsensio Begumisa v Eric Tibebega (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Lugazi Progressive School & Anor v Serunjoji & Ors [2001-2005] 2 HCB 12
  • Siwa Bonin v John Arap Kissa (High Court Civil Suit No. 58 of 2007)
  • David Acar v Alfred Aliro [1982] HCB 60

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bahemurwaki and 2 Others v Nakate and 2 Others (Civil Appeal 24 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 1169 (13 December 2024)
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.