Bushenyi-Ishaka Town Council v Manfred Muhumuza and Others (Civil Appeal No. 231 of 2013)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

On a second civil appeal, the Court of Appeal held that grounds 1 and 2 raised questions of fact and were incompetent, as a second appeal must be on points of law under section 72 of the Civil Procedure Act. On the limitation issue, the Court held that where the appellant returned part of the disputed land to the respondents, this acknowledged the respondents' right, causing a fresh right of action to accrue under section 22(1) of the Limitation Act. Limitation began running in 1999 and the 2004 suit was within time. The Court also held the burden lay on the appellant to prove compensation and time-bar, which it failed to discharge. The appeal was dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment upheld in favour of the respondents

Facts

The respondents, as administrators of the estate of their late father Emmanuel Muhumuza who died in 1996, sued the appellant town council in the Chief Magistrate's Court claiming general damages for trespass, mesne profits and costs. They alleged that the appellant wrongly took over their late father's land without compensation. After the respondents protested, the appellant released part of the land in 1999 but withheld the rest without paying compensation. The appellant contended the takeover was lawful, that compensation for developments had been paid, and that the suit was time barred. The Chief Magistrate's Court found for the respondents, awarding shs. 45 million as general damages with interest at 12% and costs. The appellant's appeal to the High Court at Mbarara (Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2011) was dismissed with costs, leading to this second appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the land in issue belonged to the respondents' family or the Government.
2. Whether the respondents' family had been compensated for developments on the land.
3. Whether the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation.
4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

• Appeal fails and is dismissed.
• The High Court judgment in Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2011 is upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (16)

• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.237
• Public Lands Act 1969 s.24(1)
• Public Lands Act 1969 s.24
• Land Reform Decree 1975 s.1(2)
• Land Reform Decree 1975 s.4(1)
• Land Reform Decree 1975 s.4(2)
• Land Reform Decree 1975 s.5(1)
• Land Act 1998 s.99
• Limitation Act Cap 80 s.5
• Limitation Act s.11(1)
• Limitation Act s.11(2)
• Limitation Act s.16
• Limitation Act s.22(1)
• Civil Procedure Act s.72
• Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.11
• Evidence Act s.101

Cases cited (3)

• R v Hassan bin Said (1942) 9 E.A.C.A. 62
• Lubanga v Ddumba (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2011)
• Mitwalo Magyengo v Medadi Mutyaba (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1996)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Julius Kamya and Others v Haji Ahmed Lugoloobi Gitta (Miscellaneous Application No. 577 of 2024)

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