Wakilii

Gwama Charles and 3 Others v Takali Jaliya (Civil Appeal 26 of 2007)

High Court · [2009] UGHC 268 · 2009 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal from the judgment and orders of Pallisa District Land Tribunal
Decision
Judgment modified: respondent's victory upheld but boundaries to be established by Magistrate at locus in quo; eviction order and perpetual injunction granted; ex-parte judgment against appellants 2 and 3 set aside

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 partially allowed the appeal, holding that the tribunal erred in entering ex-parte judgment against appellants 2 and 3 under rule 23 where they were represented by counsel throughout trial, and that a visit to the locus in quo is necessary to establish boundaries. Three grounds of appeal were struck out for not challenging any actual holdings of the tribunal. The tribunal's evaluation of evidence was upheld.

Outcome

Judgment modified: respondent's victory upheld but boundaries to be established by Magistrate at locus in quo; eviction order and perpetual injunction granted; ex-parte judgment against appellants 2 and 3 set aside

Facts

The respondent sued the appellants in Pallisa District Land Tribunal for trespass, seeking a declaration of ownership, eviction, and perpetual injunction. The tribunal heard the case and delivered judgment on 6 December 2006, read out on 2 May 2007, in favour of the respondent. The appellants filed a memorandum of appeal with six grounds. During trial, the tribunal fixed a visit to the locus in quo for 9 February 2006, but the appellants and their counsel failed to attend. The tribunal cancelled the visit and awarded costs to the respondent. Only appellants 1 and 4 testified; appellants 2 and 3 did not give evidence. The tribunal entered ex-parte judgment against appellants 2 and 3 under rule 23 for failure to appear.

Issues

  1. Whether the tribunal erred by failing to visit the locus in quo and delineate boundaries of the appellants' land.
  2. Whether the tribunal failed to properly evaluate the evidence on record.
  3. Whether the tribunal erred in entering ex-parte judgment against the 2nd and 3rd respondents for failure to testify.
  4. Whether grounds of appeal that do not challenge actual holdings of the tribunal are competent under rule 56(2).
  5. Whether an appeal filed 13 days after judgment delivery is within the prescribed time under rule 56(3).

Orders

  • Appeal allowed to a limited extent.
  • Judgment entered in favour of the claimant/respondent against all four respondents/appellants in respect of the disputed land.
  • Grade I Magistrate at Pallisa Court directed to establish boundaries after hearing evidence at the locus in quo from both parties.
  • Eviction order and perpetual injunction to issue against the appellants, their agents/servants and all those claiming under or from them.
  • Costs in the lower court and 2/3 of the costs in the High Court to be paid by the appellants to the respondent.
  • Grounds 1, 3 and 4 of appeal struck out with costs for offending rule 56(2).

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Computation of Appeal Period
The expression 'the day the decision appealed against was made' in rule 56(3) of the Land Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2002 means the day the decision was pronounced or delivered by the court, not the day it was written, because before pronouncement there is no definitive decision and a party cannot know about it to consider an appeal.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Grounds of Appeal — Competence of Grounds
A ground of appeal must challenge a holding or ratio decidendi and must specify points which were wrongly decided by the tribunal. Grounds that do not challenge any actual holdings of the tribunal or specify points that the tribunal decided are incompetent and contrary to rule 56(2) of the Land Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2002.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Submissions Not Based on Grounds of Appeal
Submissions that do not relate to any specified ground of appeal require leave of court under Order 43 rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Where counsel makes such submissions without seeking or obtaining leave, those submissions are incompetent.
Land & Property — Boundaries — Visit to Locus in Quo — Party's Failure to Attend
A party who has not asked the tribunal to visit the locus in quo at any stage of trial and who, together with counsel, fails to attend a hearing fixed by the tribunal for visiting the locus in quo without excuse should not complain that the tribunal failed to visit the locus. However, where evidence shows adjoining land ownership, a visit to establish boundaries remains necessary in the interests of justice and equity.
Civil Procedure — Ex-Parte Judgment — Meaning of 'Absence' Under Rule 23
Where a defendant is represented by counsel who is present at the hearing until closure of the case, the defendant cannot be said to be absent within the meaning of rule 23 of the Land Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2002, even if the defendant personally does not give evidence. A tribunal errs in law by entering ex-parte judgment under rule 23 against such a defendant.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (1)

  • N.I.C v Pelican Air Services (CACA No. 15 of 2003)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gwama Charles and 3 Others v Takali Jaliya (Civil Appeal 26 of 2007) [2009] UGHC 268 (16 July 2009)
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.