Wakilii

Barasa Thomas v Ojiambo Pascal (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2021)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 938 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Namayingo Grade One Magistrate's Court decision in a land recovery suit
Decision
Appeal dismissed; respondent confirmed as lawful owner of the suit land; appellant confirmed as trespasser

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 dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's finding that the respondent was the lawful owner of the suit land. The court held that the respondent's father acquired the land as a gift inter vivos in 1952 from the late Hasimba Ogiiso, evidenced by 33 years of exclusive occupation until his death in 1985 and continued family occupation thereafter. The appellant's claim that the allocation was temporary was unsupported by evidence. The appellant was therefore a trespasser when he entered the land in 2013.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; respondent confirmed as lawful owner of the suit land; appellant confirmed as trespasser

Facts

The respondent sued the appellant for recovery of approximately 1.5 acres of land at Nasinu ward, Namayingo Town Council. The respondent claimed he inherited the land from his father, the late Okumu Kubadi, who acquired it from the late Ogiiso Hasimba in 1952. The respondent's father occupied the land until his death in 1985, and the respondent continued occupation until 2013 when the appellant trespassed and began cultivating. The appellant contended that his grandfather, Ogiiso Hasimba, gave the land to the respondent's father only temporarily in 1952 while he looked for his own land, and that the rest of the respondent's family had relocated, causing the land to revert to the appellant's clan. The trial court found for the respondent, declaring him owner, the appellant a trespasser, and awarding UGX 7,000,000 in general damages plus costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate erred in awarding general damages of UGX 7,000,000 to the respondent without justification.
  2. Whether the trial magistrate erred in holding that the appellant is a trespasser on the suit land.
  3. Whether the trial magistrate erred in evaluating and analyzing only the evidence of the respondent's witnesses in disregard of the appellant's witnesses.
  4. Whether the suit land was given to the respondent's father as a permanent or temporary allocation.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Judgment and orders of the lower court upheld.
  • Costs of the appeal and the court below awarded to the respondent.
  • Ground 6 of the memorandum of appeal struck out for being argumentative and lacking specificity.

Rules and key headnotes

Gift Inter Vivos — Requirements for Perfection of Gift of Unregistered Land
For a gift inter vivos of unregistered land to be perfected, the donor must intend to give the gift, the donor must deliver the property, and the donee must accept the gift and take immediate physical possession. There is no mandatory requirement for the transfer to be in writing.
Proof of Gift — Exclusive Occupation as Evidence
A gift inter vivos of land may be established by evidence of exclusive occupation and user thereof by the donee during the lifetime of the donor. Such exclusive occupation and user may suffice as evidence that the gift was accepted and perfected.
Customary Land — Inference of Permanent Gift from Long Occupation
Where a donee and his family occupy and utilize land unchallenged for over 60 years following an alleged gift, the donor's intention is properly inferred to have been for permanent and exclusive use, and the donor's heirs are estopped from laying claim to the land.
Inheritance — No Right to Land Already Gifted Away
Where land has been lawfully given away as a gift inter vivos by a deceased person during his lifetime, that land ceases to form part of the deceased's estate and his heirs have no right of inheritance to it.
Grounds of Appeal — Argumentative and General Grounds
A ground of appeal that is argumentative and general in nature, lacking specificity and clarity on how the trial court allegedly failed to evaluate evidence, offends Order 43 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and may be struck out.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (5)

  • Sanyu Lwanga Musoke v Galiwango (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1995)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Migadde Richard and Others v Nakibule (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 53 of 2019)
  • Odiya v Lukwiya and 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2018)
  • Ovoya Poli v Wakunga Charles (High Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Barasa Thomas v Ojiambo Pascal (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2021) [2025] UGHC 938 (13 June 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.