Wakilii

Bart Mukasa v Ssenyomo Tonny Kidduse and Others (Civil Suit No. 95 of 2018)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 563 · 2025 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaration of ownership, trespass, and injunction; defendants counterclaimed for declaration that the land belonged to their late father's estate
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the 2nd to 11th defendants; plaintiff's suit dismissed; plaintiff ordered to hand over certificate of title and transfer forms to the defendants

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 defendants' counterclaim was not barred by limitation as their cause of action arose in 2017 when the plaintiff obtained letters of administration, not in 1986 when the land was allegedly sold. The court found the 1986 sale agreement between Filomera Nalwanga and Cuthbert Mayega valid, as there had been no dispute during their lifetimes and the defendants had been in continuous occupation since purchase. The defendants were not trespassers, having lawfully acquired the land. The suit land belonged to the estate of Cuthbert Mayega, not Filomera Nalwanga.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the 2nd to 11th defendants; plaintiff's suit dismissed; plaintiff ordered to hand over certificate of title and transfer forms to the defendants

Facts

The plaintiff, Bart Mukasa, obtained letters of administration for the estate of his late aunt Filomera Nalwanga, the registered proprietor of Mawokota Block 50 Plot 34 measuring 17 acres. He sued the defendants for trespass, claiming they unlawfully occupied the land. The defendants counterclaimed, asserting their late father Cuthbert Mayega had purchased the land from Filomera Nalwanga in 1986 under a written sale agreement for UGX 300,000. The defendants had been in continuous occupation since 1986, developing the land with permanent structures and plantations. There had been no dispute between Filomera Nalwanga and Cuthbert Mayega during their lifetimes. The defendants initially approached the plaintiff to help them process a certificate of title, believing he would assist as a relative, but he instead sued them. The plaintiff admitted he had never visited the suit land during his aunt's lifetime or after her death, and did not know when the defendants began occupying it.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants' counterclaim is barred by limitation?
  2. Whether the sale agreement between the late Filomera Nalwanga and Mayega is valid?
  3. Whether the defendants are trespassers on the suit land?
  4. Who is the rightful owner of the suit land?
  5. Whether the suit land comprised in Mawokota Block 50 Plot 34 at Bulerejje is the estate of the late Filomera Nalwanga or Cuthbert Mayega?
  6. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • A declaration that the suit land comprised in Mawokota Block 50 Plot 34 land at Burelejje, Sabagabo, Mpigi District measuring 17 acres forms part of the estate of the late Cuthbert Mayega and thus it belongs to the beneficiaries of his estate exclusively and not the plaintiff.
  • A declaration that the 2nd to 11th defendants are not trespassers on the suit land.
  • An order is issued directing the plaintiff to hand over the certificate of title for the suit land together with signed transfer forms to the Administrator of the late Cuthbert Mayega at their own cost.
  • A permanent injunction doth issue restraining the plaintiff, his servants, agents and or any other persons deriving title from him from entering, remaining or otherwise interfering with the defendants' occupation of the suit property or in any other way.
  • Costs of the suit to be borne by the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Limitation of Actions — Counterclaim — When Cause of Action Accrues
For purposes of determining whether a counterclaim is barred by limitation, the cause of action accrues not when an alleged sale occurred, but when the plaintiff obtains letters of administration and sues the defendants as trespassers, thereby challenging their possession rights.
Sale of Land — Validity of Agreement — Absence of Witnesses
The absence of witnesses to a sale agreement does not invalidate the agreement where there is no evidence of forgery or disputed signatures, and the parties acted consistently with the agreement during their lifetimes without dispute.
Vendor as Trustee — Effect of Sale
Once a person has sold land, they cease to be the owner and become a trustee on behalf of the purchaser, even where legal title has not been formally transferred.
Trespass to Land — Burden of Proof — Lawful Entry
A plaintiff alleging trespass must prove that the defendants entered the land unlawfully or without the former registered owner's consent. Where the plaintiff has no knowledge of when or how the defendants entered the land and the defendants have been in continuous occupation with no challenge during the former owner's lifetime, the claim of trespass fails.
Estate Property — Land Sold Before Death
Where a deceased person sold land during their lifetime under a valid agreement, that land ceases to form part of the deceased's estate and belongs instead to the purchaser's estate, notwithstanding that legal title remained in the vendor's name at death.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (12)

  • Uganda Railways Corporation v Ekwaru D O and 5104 Others (Civil Appeal No. 185 of 2007)
  • Murome Sayikwo v Kuko Yovan and Another [1985] HCB 68
  • F X Miragago v Attorney General [1979] HCB 24
  • Burkett v James [1977] 2 All ER 801
  • Iga v. Makerere University (197) EA 65
  • Sharif Osman v Hajji Haruna Mulangwa (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1995)
  • Ismail Jaffer Allibhai and 2 Others v Nandlal Harjivan Karia and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 63 of 1995)
  • Kiwanuka Fredrick Kakumutwe v Kibirige Edward (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 272 of 2017)
  • Justine E M N Lutaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Maria Specioza Mukasa v Kasifa Nambi and Another (Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2017)
  • Hope Rwaguma v Jingo Livingstone Mukasa (Civil Suit No. 508 of 2012)
  • Aida Najjemba v Esther Mpagi (Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bart Mukasa v Ssenyomo Tonny Kidduse and Others (Civil Suit No. 95 of 2018) [2025] UGHC 563 (24 March 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.