Byamugisha and Another v Kigenyi (Civil Appeal 19 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 partly allowed the appeal, holding that the suit land belongs to the estate of the late Bulandina Matama, not personally to the respondent administrator. Neither party proved a valid gift inter vivos of unregistered land as required by law. The sale by the 1st appellant to the 2nd appellant was unlawful as the seller had no ownership rights. The property remains available for administration by the respondent and co-administrator who hold letters of probate to the estate.
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed — suit land declared property of the estate of Bulandina Matama to be administered by respondent and co-administrator; sale to 2nd appellant declared unlawful; no costs order
Facts
The late Bulandina Matama owned property at Kyenjojo Central Village. Her daughter Nyakaisiki was the mother of the respondent and 1st appellant. Bulandina died in 2004 and the respondent together with Nalubega Anne obtained letters of probate for her estate. The 1st appellant, without the respondent's permission, sold part of the property to the 2nd appellant. The 2nd appellant took possession and began construction, leading the respondent to file suit. The 1st appellant claimed he had inherited the property from his late mother Nyakaisiki as a gift inter vivos from Bulandina and lawfully sold his share with permission of co-administrator Nalubega Anne. The respondent claimed Bulandina bequeathed the property to him by will. The Chief Magistrate found the sale unlawful and declared the property belonged to the respondent. The appellants appealed.
Issues
- Whether the memorandum of appeal complied with the form requirements in Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 1(2)
- Who is the rightful owner of the suit land
- Whether the sale of the suit land to the 2nd appellant was lawful
- Whether either party proved a valid gift inter vivos of the suit land
- What remedies are available to the parties
Orders
- The sale of the suit land by the 1st appellant to the 2nd appellant was unlawful.
- The suit land belongs to the estate of the late Bulandina Matama and is available for administration by the respondent and Nalubega Anne who hold the letters of probate to the said estate.
- Each party shall bear its own costs of this appeal.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
Cases cited (8)
- Isharaza Mathew v Beyunga Deusdedit (High Court Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2004)
- Moro Okolla Vs John Lalobo [1979] HCB 54
- Katusabe Margaret v Kaboyo Paddy (High Court Civil Appeal No. 07 of 2021)
- Banjo Masereka v Zeresi Biira Baluku and Another (High Court Civil Appeal No. 023 of 2020)
- Father Nanensio Begumisa and 3 Others v Eric Tiberaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2000)
- Uganda Breweries v Uganda Railways Corporation 2002 E.A
- Ojwang v Wilson Bagonza (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2002)
- Joy Mukobe v Willy Wambuwu (High Court Civil Appeal No. 055 of 2005)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.