Wakilii

Bukera and 4 Others v Kabenge (Civil Appeal No. 0035 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 108 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court judgment dismissing suit for declaration of illegal road closure and orders to reopen access road
Decision
Appeal dismissed; trial court judgment in favour of respondent upheld

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 2 times 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 appellants failed to establish a legal right of way through the respondent's registered plots 691 and 692, as no access road was reflected on the deed plans. The court found that the respondent lawfully created an alternative access road at the edge of his plots, ensuring the appellants retained access to their properties. The trial magistrate's findings were upheld despite some lack of clarity in reasoning.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; trial court judgment in favour of respondent upheld

Facts

The appellants and respondent are neighbours at Ssenge Village, Wakiso District. In January 2019, the respondent purchased plots 692 and 691, which are opposite his home on plot 778. An existing access road ran between these plots, used by the appellants and other community members to reach Kawanda road. In May 2021, the respondent began erecting a wall fence, closing the existing road. The appellants filed suit seeking declarations that the closure was illegal and orders to reopen the road. The respondent contended he is the registered proprietor of plots 778, 691, and 692, that no access road passes through his land as shown on the title deeds, and that the appellants have a clear alternative road at the edge of plots 692 and 691. The trial magistrate visited the locus and found in favour of the respondent. The respondent created an alternative access road by breaking part of plot 691 to connect to an existing road serving plots 1802, 1803, 1804, and 1805.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate erred in law and fact in evaluating the evidence and reaching her conclusions
  2. Whether the appellants have or enjoy a legal right of way through the respondent's land
  3. Whether the respondent violated any right of way by blocking the existing access road
  4. Whether the trial magistrate properly considered the evidence from the locus in quo visit

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs in the High Court and in the lower court.

Rules and key headnotes

Easements — Right of Way — Requirement for Registration on Title Deed
A right of way through registered land must be reflected on the deed plan to be legally enforceable against the registered proprietor, regardless of historical use by neighbouring landowners.
Easements — Creation of Access Roads — Statutory Framework
Under the Roads Act Cap 346 s.60, where a landowner is unable through negotiations to obtain leave from adjoining landowners to construct an access road to a public road, the landowner may apply to the minister for leave to construct an access road over land lying between the landowner's land and the public road.
Easements — Burden of Proof — Establishing Right of Way
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a right of way to establish that the right exists, either through registration on the deed plan, express grant, or by demonstrating continuous use coupled with the landowner's failure to take overt acts to challenge the public right of way.
Appeals — Grounds of Appeal — Form and Content Requirements
Under Order 43 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a memorandum of appeal must set forth concisely and under distinct heads the grounds of objection to the decision appealed from, without argument or narrative. Grounds that are argumentative, narrative, or repetitive may be struck out.
Appeals — First Appellate Court — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
A first appellate court has a duty to re-hear the case by subjecting the evidence to fresh and exhaustive scrutiny and re-appraisal before coming to its own conclusion, making due allowance for the fact that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (11)

  • Father Nanensio Beaumisa and three Others v Eric Tiberaga (SCCA No. 17 of 2000)
  • Louinsa Nankua v Nsibambi [1980] HCB 81
  • Musoke v Agard and 2 Others (Consolidated Civil Appeals No. 134 of 2017 and No. 46 of 2016)
  • Fairey vs. Southampton County Council [1956] 2 ALL ER 853
  • Lancaster Vs Blackwell Colliery Co. Ltd 1982 WC Rep 345
  • Sebuliba v Cooperative Bank Ltd [1982] HCB 130
  • Miller V Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All.E.R 372
  • Katumba V Kenya Airways. Civil Appeal No 2008
  • Abdu Naobi v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1992)
  • Mbabazi Rouence Natukunda and Louce Kahunda v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 47 of 2012)
  • Harriet Fowler & Anor vs. Arthur Busingye

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Bukera_and_4_Others_v_Kabenge_(Civil_Appeal_No._0035_of_2023)_[2025]_UGHCLD_108_(27_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.