Ddungu v Marc Widmer & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2009)

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

Held: A registered proprietor of land holds legal possession by virtue of the certificate of title and may sue in trespass without further proof of physical possession. The certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership under the Registration of Titles Act s.59 and the proprietor holds the land free from unregistered encumbrances under s.64(1). The appellant failed to prove any lawful kibanja interest or tenant by occupancy status. The appeal was dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; trial court judgment upholding respondents' title and possession affirmed

Facts

The appellant was a neighbour to the respondents, who were registered proprietors of land comprised in LRV 2533 folio 6, plot 16 Circular Drive, Entebbe. The appellant allegedly encroached on the respondents' land and began constructing a structure thereon. The respondents sued for trespass to land. The appellant claimed she had been given the land by her father in 1990 and asserted a kibanja interest. She produced no documentary proof of the gift and her sole witness testified only about a sale involving plot 37, which had no connection to the suit land (plot 16). The trial court found in favour of the respondents. The appellant appealed, arguing that the trial magistrate failed to properly evaluate the evidence, failed to apply the correct burden of proof, and violated the land law regime of Uganda.

Issues

1. Whether the trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence on record and applied the relevant law.
2. Whether the respondents discharged the burden of proving trespass to land by the appellant.
3. Whether the appellant held a lawful kibanja interest or other recognized interest in the suit land.
4. Whether a registered proprietor with a certificate of title is seized with legal possession sufficient to maintain an action in trespass.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondents.
• Costs of the trial court awarded to the respondents.
• Copy of judgment to be served upon the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• Registration of Titles Act s.59
• Registration of Titles Act s.64(1)
• Evidence Act s.101
• Evidence Act s.102
• Evidence Act s.109
• Evidence Act s.110
• Land Act s.29
• Land Act s.31
• Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.1(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.14(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.18

Cases cited (5)

• Justine E.M.N. Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
• Moya Drift Farm Ltd vs. Theuri (1973) E.A. 114
• Hassan Sserwadda v Namutebi Kasozi (Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2001)
• Sebuliba vs. Cooperative Bank Ltd (1982) HCB 130
• Miller vs. Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

• Simiyu v Uganda National Roads Authority (Civil Suit 18 of 2021)
• Nassazi v Walugembe (Divorce Cause 75 of 2020)
• Kyzyma v Okello (Divorce Cause 79 of 2022)

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