Bongerwa v Birungi (Civil Appeal 48 of 2021)
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, upholding the trial court's finding that the appellant purchased only approximately one acre from the respondent under the agreement dated 13 July 1999. The Court held that where land is described both by dimensions and by visible monuments, the latter prevail. The trial court properly evaluated all evidence including that from the locus visit, where both the seller and another witness denied selling the appellant land on the hill slopes. The procedure at locus was correctly followed under Practice Direction No. 1 of 2007.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; trial court judgment upheld
Facts
The appellant sued the respondent for trespass, claiming ownership of approximately one acre at Kiyanga II, Kyakaterwa, Nyangahya, Masindi district. The appellant claimed he purchased the land from the respondent on 13 July 1999 for 40,000 shillings, took possession immediately, and used it peacefully until October 2016 when the respondent allegedly entered the land and planted boundary marks. The respondent denied trespass, stating the disputed land formed part of her mother's land. She admitted selling approximately one acre to the appellant in 1999 as instructed by her mother, but maintained the appellant had encroached beyond that one acre. At trial, the appellant also produced an earlier purchase agreement dated 9 February 1996 for land he claimed to have bought from Byabagambi Florence. At the locus visit, both the respondent and Byabagambi Florence denied selling the appellant land on the hill slopes where he claimed ownership. The trial court found the appellant purchased only approximately one acre near Ganyana's land (now Bihemaiso's land) and dismissed the suit.
Issues
- Whether the appellant acquired more than one acre of land from the respondent under the purchase agreement dated 13 July 1999.
- Whether the trial magistrate erred in failing to consider the purchase agreement dated 9 February 1996 as evidence of the appellant's ownership of the suit land.
- Whether the trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence on record.
- Whether the trial magistrate followed the correct procedure for conducting a locus in quo visit.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Judgment of the Chief Magistrate's Court delivered on 21 December 2021 upheld.
- Costs of the appeal and below awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (10)
- Father Nanensio Begumisa and 3 Ors v Eric Tiberaga (SCCA No. 17 of 2004)
- FK Zaabwe v Orient Bank and Ors (SCCA No. 4 of 2006)
- Mukasa v Uganda [1964] EA 698
- Badru Kabalega v Sepiriano Mugangu (HCCS No. 7 of 1987)
- Salmond and Heuston on the Law of Torts 19th edition
- Bumbakali v Muhairwe & Ors (Civil Suit No. 36 of 1999)
- Kwebiiha Emmanuel & Another v Rwanga Furujensio & 2 Ors (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2011)
- Oyet Celestino v Okello Lunjino (MA 53 of 2017)
- Ojara Samuel & 6 Ors v Bwomi Sezi (HC Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2016)
- Ddamulira Aloysius v Nakijoba Josephine (HC Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2019)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.