Isingoma v Bakale Kakwerwe (Civil Appeal 44 of 2005)
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 allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was the customary owner of suit land acquired by gift inter vivo from Catherine Kabaseke, who had purchased it from Simon Bweyale in 1968. The respondent's purported sale of part of this land to Rwakibale and his cutting down of bananas and muko trees constituted trespass. The trial magistrate erred in rejecting credible evidence from the LC I Chairperson and local councillor and in preferring the respondent's witnesses whose knowledge derived solely from the respondent himself. General damages of UGX 2.5 million were awarded for trespass.
Outcome
Appellant declared customary owner of suit land; respondent found to be a trespasser; eviction order and permanent injunction granted
Facts
The appellant acquired land in Fort Portal by gift inter vivo in 2000 from his aunt Catherine Kabaseke, who had purchased it from Simon Bweyale in 1968. The respondent inherited neighbouring land from his father. Around 1999, the respondent shifted boundaries to include part of the appellant's land, cut down bananas and muko trees belonging to the appellant, and sold this portion to one Rwakibale, who planted eucalyptus trees. The appellant had been in possession and developing the land with banana plantations for beer production. Elders resolved a 1999 dispute in the appellant's favour. The respondent conducted the sale to Rwakibale without involving neighbours or local council officials. The Grade I Magistrate at Fort Portal dismissed the appellant's suit for trespass with costs.
Issues
- Whether the trial magistrate erred in finding that the land given to the plaintiff by his aunt never included the land in dispute.
- Whether the trial magistrate erred in finding that the defendant had not trespassed on the plaintiff's land.
- Whether the trial magistrate misdirected himself by holding that there was no proof of the sale agreement between Simon Bweyale and Catherine Kabaseke.
- Whether the trial magistrate failed to properly evaluate the evidence on record.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Judgment and orders of the lower court set aside.
- The appellant is the customary owner of suit land.
- The respondent is a trespasser on suit land.
- Eviction order granted against the respondent and his agents; respondent to give vacant possession of suit land to the appellant.
- Permanent injunction granted against the respondent in respect of suit land.
- General damages for trespass awarded to the appellant in the sum of UGX 2,500,000.
- General damages to attract interest at court rate from date of judgment until payment in full.
- Costs of the appeal and in the lower court awarded to the appellant.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (1)
- Lutaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.