Wakilii

Kabasongola v Kaburuli (Civil Appeal No. 0016 of 2015)

High Court · [2016] UGHCLD 47 · 2016 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court judgment dismissing trespass claim
Decision
Appeal dismissed; trial court judgment affirmed

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

Held that a person cannot pass title to land which he does not own. Byaruhanga Joseph was a temporary licensee on the Respondent's land and left after two years; he had no title to pass to the Appellant's late husband. Though the trial court failed to visit the locus in quo in this contentious encroachment case, no miscarriage of justice was occasioned by reference to documents on file but not formally tendered. Grave inconsistencies in the Appellant's evidence regarding purchase price and acreage undermined her case. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; trial court judgment affirmed

Facts

The Appellant claimed her late husband Emmanuel Balinda purchased land at Kitanyata, Kyenjojo Town Council from Byaruhanga Joseph in 1992 and she had used it peacefully until 2006 when the Respondent allegedly trespassed by destroying crops and planting boundary marks. The Respondent contended the land belonged to her, having been decreed to her by the LCII Court after a dispute with Mbeta, Byaruhanga's father. The trial court heard evidence that Byaruhanga had been granted temporary stay on the land by the Respondent after his father's death and left after two years. The Appellant's witnesses contradicted each other on the purchase price and acreage. The trial court found Byaruhanga had no title to pass and dismissed the suit. The Appellant appealed alleging improper evaluation of evidence and reliance on unexhibited documents.

Issues

  1. Whether Byaruhanga Joseph passed on any title to the Appellant's late husband.
  2. Whether the trial Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence on record.
  3. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in relying on evidence not exhibited in Court.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Right of appeal explained.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Title — Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet — Licensee Cannot Pass Title
A person cannot pass a better title than he himself has. A temporary licensee on land who subsequently leaves the land has no title to convey and cannot validly transfer ownership to a purchaser.
Tort Law — Trespass to Land — Sufficient Legal Possession
Trespass to land occurs when another person makes an unauthorised entry upon land and thereby interferes with another person's lawful possession. In the absence of any other person having lawful possession, a person holding a certificate of title or having proved ownership has sufficient legal possession to support an action for trespass.
Evidence — Contradictions and Inconsistencies — Grave Contradictions
Where grave inconsistencies occur in a party's evidence, the evidence may be rejected unless satisfactorily explained, while minor inconsistencies may have no adverse effect on the testimony unless they point to deliberate untruthfulness. Major contradictions going to the root of the case, such as conflicting evidence on purchase price and acreage in a land dispute, render the evidence unreliable.
Civil Procedure — Locus in Quo — Necessity of Visit — Encroachment Cases
It is not necessary to visit the locus in quo in every case. However, in a case of alleged encroachment, the trial court cannot properly determine encroachment and its extent without visiting the locus in quo. Contentious matters regarding boundaries and physical features require visual appreciation by the court.
Civil Procedure — First Appellate Court — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
The first appellate court has a duty to re-appraise and re-evaluate evidence by affidavit as well as evidence by oral testimony, with the exception of the manner and demeanour of witnesses, where it must be guided by the impression made on the trial judge.

Cases cited (5)

  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Justine Lutaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Company Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • John Byekwaso & Another v Yudaya Ndagire (Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2012)
  • Bishopgate Motor Finance Corporation Ltd versus Transports Brakes Ltd
  • Uganda v Abdallah Nassur [1982] HCB

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.

Kabasongola v Kaburuli (Civil Appeal No. 0016 of 2015) [2016] UGHCLD 47 (24 November 2016)
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.