Wakilii

Bukulu v Jemba (HCT-00-LD-CA 95 of 2022)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 296 · 2024 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court of Kasangati arising from Civil Suit No. 0041 of 2016
Decision
Appeal dismissed. Respondent remains entitled to quiet possession as Kibanja holder on the disputed land.

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 affirmed the trial court's finding that the Respondent held equitable rights as a Kibanja holder on part of the land comprised in the Appellant's registered title. The Court held that under section 36(3) of the Land Act Cap 236, the reversionary interest holder (registered proprietor) was required to offer first option of sale to the tenant in occupancy. Since the Respondent had not been given this first priority to purchase, his Kibanja rights remained valid despite the Appellant's subsequent registration as proprietor. The appeal was dismissed and each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed. Respondent remains entitled to quiet possession as Kibanja holder on the disputed land.

Facts

The Appellant was registered proprietor of Block 113 Plots 440 and 441 land at Bumba, Wakiso District, having first acquired Kibanja interest in 2003 from Israel Mugambe for UGX 2,300,000. In 2013/2014, he purchased registerable interests from Kibirango Festo (son of the late Mugambe) and was registered in 2016. The Respondent had occupied an adjacent portion as a Kibanja holder since before the Appellant's registration. In 2016 and 2017, the Appellant discovered that the Respondent was constructing a perimeter wall on what the Appellant claimed was part of his registered land. A survey revealed boundary disputes and encroachment. At trial, evidence established that all parties had been in peaceful possession since the early 2000s with demarcated boundaries. The trial magistrate found that the Respondent held equitable Kibanja rights and was not a trespasser. The Appellant appealed, contending the trial court erred in holding the Respondent was a Kibanja holder on his registered land.

Issues

  1. Whether the parties owned distinctive pieces of Bibanja as of 2016.
  2. Whether the Respondent was trespassing on part of the Appellant's land comprised in Block 113 Plot 440 and 441 located at Bumba.
  3. Whether the Appellant's acquisition of the suit land was tainted with fraud and illegalities.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Kibanja Holdings — First Right of Refusal — Land Act s.36(3)
Where a registered proprietor holds revisionary interests over land occupied by a Kibanja holder, the proprietor is obliged under section 36(3) of the Land Act Cap 236 to offer the first option of sale to the tenant in occupancy before selling to a third party or claiming exclusive possession.
Kibanja Holdings — Equitable Rights — Protection Against Registered Proprietor
A Kibanja holder retains equitable rights in the land notwithstanding subsequent registration of title by a purchaser of the reversionary interest, where the Kibanja holder was not given the statutory first option to purchase and did not consent to the transfer of his interest to the registered proprietor.
Appeals — Duty of First Appellate Court — Re-evaluation of Evidence
On first appeal, the appellate court is under 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 on issues of fact and law, while making due allowance for the trial court's advantage in observing witnesses.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (2)

  • Father Nanensio Bequmisa and three Others v Eric Tiberaea (SCCA 17 of 2000)
  • Pandya [1957] EA. 336

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bukulu_v_Jemba_(HCT-00-LD-CA_95_of_2022)_[2024]_UGHCLD_296_(12_December_2024)
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.