Godfrey Ojwang v Wilson Bagonza (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2002)
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 Court of Appeal held that the appellant did not lawfully acquire his kibanja because the transfer under the Land Reform Decree required three months' notice to the controlling authority, which was never given, rendering the acquisition void. He was therefore neither a lawful nor a bona fide occupant protected by section 29(5) of the Land Act. Money paid under the illegal sale (shs 1,200,000) was irrecoverable. On damages, the special damages were reduced to shs 3,900,000 (only strictly proved amounts allowed) and general damages reduced to shs 100,000 because trespass ran from the 1999 lease, not 1996. The appeal partly succeeded and partly failed, with the respondent awarded 4/5 of costs.
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed; special damages reduced to shs 3,900,000 and general damages to shs 100,000; appellant found not to have acquired a legally recognised interest in the land
Facts
In 1992 the appellant acquired a customary holding (kibanja) at Nsambya West Zone, Makindye, from Francis Ndaga. In 1996 he sold part of it to the respondent for shs 1,200,000. When the respondent sought to register his interest, he discovered the land was registered to the Registered Trustees of Kampala Archdiocese, who described the appellant as a trespasser. The respondent obtained a 49-year lease and certificate of title covering the land, then requested the appellant to vacate and offered compensation of shs 9,000,000, which was rejected. Efforts to evict the appellant failed, and the respondent sued for eviction, trespass, and damages. The appellant counterclaimed asserting an equitable interest and alleging the respondent's registration was fraudulent. Evidence showed no notice was given to the controlling authority as required by the Land Reform Decree, there were no developments on the land, and Kampala Archdiocese's records dating from 1966 did not list the appellant or his predecessors as bibanja holders.
Issues
- Whether the appellant acquired any interest recognised by law in the suit land.
- Whether the appellant was a bona fide occupant protected under section 29(5) of the Land Act.
- Whether money paid pursuant to an illegal land transaction is recoverable.
- Whether the special and general damages awarded by the trial court were proved and correctly computed.
Orders
- Special damages award of shs 8,596,500 set aside and substituted with shs 3,900,000.
- General damages reduced and substituted with shs 100,000.
- Appeal partly succeeds and partly fails.
- Respondent awarded 4/5 of the costs both in the Court of Appeal and the court below.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Land Reform Decree No.3 of 1975 s.1(1)
- Land Reform Decree No.3 of 1975 s.4(1)
- Land Reform Decree No.3 of 1975 s.4(2)
- Land Reform Decree No.3 of 1975 s.5(1)
- Registration of Titles Act (Cap 230) s.64
- Land Act (Cap 227) s.29(5)
- Land Act (Cap 227) s.29(2)
- Land Act (Cap 227) s.30(1)(a)
- Land Act (Cap 227) s.4(1)
- Interpretation Act s.13(2)
Cases cited (7)
- Uganda Telecommunications v Abraham Kitumba and Another (Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1995)
- Somali Democratic Republic v Annop Sunderali Treon (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1988)
- Paul Kisekka Saku v Seventh Day Adventist Church (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1993)
- Kibalama and Another v Margaret Kiwana (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1982)
- Singh v Kulubya [1963] EA 408
- Broadways Construction Ltd v Kasule and Others [1972] EA 76
- Makura International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga &Another [1982] H.C.B 11
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.