Wakilii

Hussein Juma v Raphael Bwami (Civil Appeal No. DR. MFP 6 90)

High Court · [1991] UGHC 20 · 1991 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court dismissing claim for arrears of rent, mesne profits and vacant possession
Decision
Appellant restored to possession of the suit premises; respondent to be evicted; appellant entitled to arrears of rent and mesne profits

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

Held that the respondent failed to prove purchase of the suit premises as no written agreement existed as required by law. The registered owner remained entitled to vacant possession. The evidential burden lay on the respondent to prove his assertion that he was a purchaser rather than a tenant, which burden he failed to discharge. Appeal allowed.

Outcome

Appellant restored to possession of the suit premises; respondent to be evicted; appellant entitled to arrears of rent and mesne profits

Facts

The appellant was the registered owner of land and a house at Plot No. 44 Bukwali village, Fort Portal. The respondent became his tenant in 1978 at a monthly rent of Shs. 1,000. In 1980, the appellant fled into exile and the respondent remained in occupation. Upon the appellant's return in 1982, he demanded arrears of rent but the respondent claimed he had purchased the premises for Shs. 100,000. The respondent alleged he handed this sum to the appellant through an intermediary, but no written agreement was executed and no transfer was registered. The appellant denied receiving any purchase money and sued for arrears of rent, mesne profits and vacant possession. The Chief Magistrate dismissed the claim, finding in favour of the respondent. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent occupied the premises as a tenant paying monthly rent or whether he purchased the premises outright and became the owner.
  2. Whether the Chief Magistrate erred in shifting the evidential burden of proof from the respondent to the appellant.
  3. Whether an agreement for the sale of land can be established by mere presumption without a written contract.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs here and below.
  • Respondent to be evicted from the suit premises within reasonable time.
  • Appellant entitled to rents for the period between conversion and date of judgment.
  • Mesne profits from date of filing suit until surrender of possession to be paid to the appellant.
  • No compensation awarded to respondent for improvements as none were proved.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Sale of Land — Requirement of Written Contract — Law of Property Act 1925 s.40
No action may be brought upon any contract for sale or other disposition of land unless the agreement is in writing and signed by the party to be charged or by a person lawfully authorised by him.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Evidential Burden — Assertion Against Registered Title
Where a party asserts that he is not a tenant but a purchaser of premises held under registered title by another, the evidential burden shifts to that party to prove his assertion by producing legally recognised evidence of the purchase.
Land & Property — Registration of Title — Registered Owner's Rights — Indefeasibility Absent Fraud
In the absence of fraud, the court cannot go behind the fact of registration. A registered owner's title remains valid until lawfully transferred or set aside.
Civil Procedure — Appellate Jurisdiction — First Appeal — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
In a first appeal, it is the duty of the appellate court to submit the evidence to fresh and exhaustive examination and evaluation and to make its own findings and draw its own conclusions, while making due allowance for the trial court's advantage in seeing and hearing witnesses.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Law of Property Act 1925 s.40

Cases cited (6)

  • Management Training Advisory Centre v P.K. Ikanza (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1985)
  • Peters vs. Sunday Rust 1958 EAU 24
  • Sella vs. Associated Motor Beat Co.1968 EA 123
  • Figuerede vs. Nanji 1962 EA 756
  • Okillo v Uganda National Board (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1987)
  • Ashey Musoke Bagirawala v George William Joggo (1976) HCB p.26

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hussein Juma v Raphael Bwami (Civil Appeal No. DR. MFP 6_90) [1991] UGHC 20 (29 January 1991)
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.