Wakilii

Bamanya Mulindwa v Namuleme and Another (Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2018)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 16 · 2022 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Magistrates Court judgment dismissing trespass claim
Decision
Appeal dismissed; trespass claim not established

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 dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to prove his trespass claim. Although the trial Magistrate erred in reframing the first issue contrary to the scheduling conference agreement and in failing to obtain a surveyor's report to determine boundaries, the evidence at locus in quo established that the disputed kibanja was not situated on the appellant's registered land. The appellant himself clarified at locus that the suit kibanja was not on his land comprised in Block 75 Plot 77, thereby defeating his claim.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; trespass claim not established

Facts

The appellant, registered proprietor of land comprised in Kabula Block 75 Plot 77, sued the respondents for trespass, claiming they entered and constructed structures on his land without consent. The first respondent claimed she inherited a kibanja on the land from her late mother, who purchased it from Edward Byaruhanga in 2004. The trial Magistrate dismissed the suit, finding the kibanja was not situated on the appellant's land and that Byaruhanga did not need the appellant's consent before selling to the respondent's mother. At locus in quo, the appellant's witness PW2 clarified that the disputed kibanja was not part of what he sold to the appellant but was land Byaruhanga had purchased from one Siraje in 2003. The appellant himself clarified at locus that the disputed kibanja was not on Block 75 Plot 77.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal was properly before the High Court given the delay in filing.
  2. Whether the trial Magistrate failed to evaluate the evidence as a whole.
  3. Whether the trial Magistrate exhibited bias and partiality.
  4. Whether the trial Magistrate abdicated his judicial duty to guide unrepresented litigants.
  5. Whether the trial court erred by conducting boundary opening without a qualified surveyor.
  6. Whether the trial Magistrate departed from the pleadings.
  7. Whether the trial Magistrate misdirected himself on the law regarding landlord's consent before purchase of kibanja.
  8. Whether the Respondents were legally occupying a kibanja on the Appellant's registered land.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Computation of Time — Exclusion of Time Taken to Obtain Record of Proceedings
In computing the period of limitation for filing an appeal, the time taken by the court or registrar in making a copy of the decree or order appealed against and of the proceedings upon which it is founded shall be excluded under Civil Procedure Act s.79(2). Time for lodgment of an appeal does not begin to run until the appellant receives a copy of the proceedings against which he or she intends to appeal.
Civil Procedure — Scheduling Conference — Agreed Facts — Departure from Agreed Facts — Miscarriage of Justice
Where parties agree on facts at a scheduling conference under Civil Procedure Rules O.12 r.1(1), the trial court errs in law by reframing issues to determine matters already agreed upon. Such departure from the scheduling conference agreement constitutes an error apparent on the record and occasions a miscarriage of justice where it is reasonably probable that a more favorable result would have been reached in the absence of the error.
Civil Procedure — Unrepresented Litigants — Duty of Trial Court to Guide — Scheduling Conference
Trial Magistrates have a duty to guide and direct unrepresented litigants on pertinent matters of court process and procedure. When handling matters with unrepresented litigants, trial Magistrates should ensure to guide them on court process and advise them to seek counsel in order to avoid occasioning a miscarriage of justice and arriving at wrong decisions.
Evidence — Locus in Quo — Purpose — Disputed Boundaries — Need for Licensed Surveyor
The purpose of visiting locus in quo is to enable the trial magistrate understand the evidence better and to verify evidence given in court on the ground. Where boundaries of land are disputed by parties at locus in quo, the trial court should obtain a survey report from a licensed surveyor to determine clearly the actual boundaries and location of the land. The actual location of any boundary is subject to evidence of an on-ground assessment and is best undertaken by a registered or licensed surveyor.
Evidence — Locus in Quo — Procedure — Clarification of Evidence — No Fresh Evidence
At locus in quo, witnesses may clarify or confirm their testimonies as already given in court. Under no circumstances should a court allow fresh evidence at the locus. Evidence taken at locus in quo should make the testimonies clearer for the judicial officer and should establish the location of the disputed land according to the parties. It is as important for judicial officers to consider evidence given by witnesses in their testimonies before court as it is to consider evidence given at locus in quo clarifying or confirming the testimonies.
Land & Property — Trespass to Land — Elements — Unauthorized Entry — Interference with Lawful Possession
Trespass to land occurs when a person makes an unauthorized entry upon land and thereby interferes, or portends to interfere, with another person's lawful possession of that land. Where evidence establishes that the disputed land is not situated on the plaintiff's land, the claim of trespass cannot stand.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (17)

  • Father Nanensio Begumisa and three Others v Eric Tiberaga (SCCA No. 17 of 2000)
  • Lovinsa Nankya v Nsibambi [1980] HCB 81
  • Njagi v Munyiri (1975) EA 179
  • Nawemba Suleiman v Bwekwaso Magenda [1989] HCB 140
  • Godfrey Tuwangye Kazoora v Georgina Kitarikwenda [1992-93] HCB 145
  • R v Barnsley Licensing Justices ex parte Barnsley and District Licensed Victuallers Association (1960) 2 QB 169
  • Kinyara Sugar v Hajji Kazimbiraine Mahmood and 4 others (HCMA No. 03 of 2020)
  • GM Combined (U) Limited v AK Detergent Limited and Others (1999) 1 EA 84
  • Olanya James v Ociti Tom and three others (Civil Appeal No. 064 of 2017)
  • Onek Manacy and Another v Omona Michael (Civil Appeal No. 0032 of 2016)
  • Safina Bakulimya and Another v Yusufu Musa Wamala (Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2007)
  • Adrabo Stanley v Madira Jimmy (HCCS No. 24 of 2013)
  • Pan African Insurance (U) Ltd v International Air Transport (HCCS No. 0667 of 2013)
  • David Acar and three Others v Alfred Acar [1982] HCB
  • Ngobi Patrick and Another v Nkuta Wilberforce (Civil Appeal No. 070 of 2017)
  • De Souza v Uganda (1967) EA 784
  • Justine E M N Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd (SCCA No. 11 of 2002)

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.

Bamanya Mulindwa v Namuleme and Another (Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2018) [2022] UGHCCD 16 (19 January 2022)
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.