Kabajungu v Akgizibwe (Civil Appeal 73 of 2010)

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

The Court of Appeal, exercising its second-appeal jurisdiction under rule 32(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, dismissed the appeal. It held that the first appellate court had properly evaluated the evidence and correctly found the respondent was not a trespasser. The seller was aware that part of the land (a foundation on plot 17) belonged to Idd Banange and had orally promised to compensate the respondent with an equivalent portion of her plot 15. The court held this oral amendment of the written sale agreement was enforceable and conformed with the acreage the respondent was entitled to. The eviction order of the District Land Tribunal was rightly set aside.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court decision that respondent was not a trespasser upheld

Facts

The appellant owned two plots of land (plots 15 and 17) in Kyenjojo Town along the Fort Portal–Kampala Road. She sold a portion measuring 50 x 100 feet to the respondent, executing a written agreement. When the respondent went to measure out the land, he found a foundation on plot 17 measuring 25 x 50 feet belonging to Idd Banange, the appellant's relative and in-law. The appellant assured him that Banange would not disturb him, but if he did, she would compensate the respondent with part of her plot 15. The respondent paid for the land, separately negotiated with and bought Banange's portion, and developed the combined land into a petrol station. About a year later a dispute arose. The Kyenjojo District Land Tribunal found the respondent a trespasser and ordered his eviction. On appeal, the High Court held he was not a trespasser and quashed the tribunal's orders, finding the sale agreement had been amended orally.

Issues

1. Whether the High Court, sitting as a first appellate court, properly evaluated the evidence in holding that the respondent was not a trespasser.
2. Whether a written sale agreement for land could be amended orally by a subsequent concession made by the seller.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed with costs in this court and the courts below.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI No. 13-10 rule 32(2)

Cases cited (5)

• Manasseh Kamugisha v Uganda Prefabricated Building Industry Ltd (HCCS No. 115 of 1994)
• Muhwezi Jackson v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 2008)
• Mulasa v Bakireka [2009] 2 EA 254
• Kifamunte v Uganda [1997] KLR 72
• Pandya VS Republic [1957] EA

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.

• Kasukali v Kiiza (HCT-01-CV-CS-LD 37 of 2019)

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