Wakilii

Bigyemano v Karugaba (Miscellaneous Application No. 233 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 107 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for revision of orders arising from execution proceedings following an earlier appeal and review application
Decision
Application granted; order of vacant possession clarified to apply only to Edward Biraro's land; taxation of costs set aside; boundary opening exercise ordered

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 court held that the order of vacant possession in Miscellaneous Application No. 79 of 2018 applied only to Edward Biraro's portion of land where the respondent held a kibanja interest, not to the applicant's portion. The court set aside the taxation of costs against the applicant and ordered a boundary opening exercise to establish the extent of the respondent's kibanja on Biraro's land.

Outcome

Application granted; order of vacant possession clarified to apply only to Edward Biraro's land; taxation of costs set aside; boundary opening exercise ordered

Facts

The respondent sued the applicant and Edward Biraro for trespass in the Chief Magistrates Court of Kiboga (Civil Suit No. 27 of 2008), claiming ownership of a kibanja on their land. The trial court found both defendants had trespassed. On appeal (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2012), the High Court held that the respondent owned a kibanja only on Edward Biraro's land, not on the applicant's land, and awarded the applicant half the costs. The respondent then filed Miscellaneous Application No. 79 of 2018 seeking an order of vacant possession against Edward Biraro and his successors in title, which was granted. The respondent subsequently attempted to execute the order against the applicant and taxed costs against him (Taxation Application No. 87 of 2019), prompting this application for revision.

Issues

  1. Whether the order of vacant possession issued in Miscellaneous Application No. 79 of 2018 should be revised to reflect the decree in Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2012.
  2. Whether the taxed bill of costs in Land Division Taxation Application No. 87 of 2019 against the applicant should be set aside.

Orders

  • The order of vacant possession issued by this court in Miscellaneous Application No. 79 of 2018 was in respect of the land belonging to Edward Biraro on which this court under Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2012 found that the respondent herein has a kibanja interest but not the applicant's portion of land.
  • A boundary opening exercise shall be conducted by a court appointed surveyor within a period of 60 days to establish the extent of the respondent's kibanja on part of the land belonging to Edward Biraro.
  • The taxation of the bill of costs in Taxation Application No. 87 of 2019 is hereby set aside and should be taxed afresh in respect of Edward Biraro and not the applicant herein.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.
  • Miscellaneous Application No. 234 of 2023 for an ex-parte order staying the execution, and Miscellaneous Application No. 235 of 2023 for stay of execution of the orders of this court in Miscellaneous Application No. 79 of 2018 are overtaken by events.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Kibanja Interests — Extent of Kibanja Rights — Clarification of Orders
Where an appellate court has determined that a kibanja holder has rights only on a specific portion of land belonging to one co-defendant and not on another co-defendant's portion, an order of vacant possession granted on review applies only to the portion of land on which the kibanja interest was found to exist.
Civil Procedure — Execution — Irregular Execution — Abuse of Process
It is irregular and amounts to an abuse of court process to attempt to execute an order of vacant possession against a party who was exonerated by an appellate court and in respect of whose land no adverse finding was made.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Setting Aside Irregular Taxation
Where an appellate court has awarded costs to a party, a subsequent taxation of costs against that same party is irregular and should be set aside and taxed afresh only in respect of the party against whom costs were awarded.

Legislation cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bigyemano_v_Karugaba_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._233_of_2023)_[2023]_UGHCLD_107_(18_April_2023)
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.