Wakilii

Kaddu and Another v Kazibwe and 2 Others (Civil Suit 648 of 2020)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 31 · 2025 Judgment for Defendants AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for trespass and related relief
Decision
Suit dismissed. 1st and 2nd defendants not trespassers. 2nd plaintiff ordered to compensate 1st defendant for the value of the kibanja to be assessed by the Chief Government Valuer within 45 days. 1st plaintiff may recover part payment from 2nd plaintiff.

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 1st defendant and her family held a protected equitable interest as bonafide occupants under the Land Act. The plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proving that the family had not occupied the land for over 12 years or that they received compensation from prior owners. The 2nd plaintiff committed fraud by failing to conduct due diligence and ignoring documented evidence of prior occupancy and unresolved rights. The suit land was subject to subsisting unregistered rights which bound the 2nd plaintiff under Registration of Titles Act s.64(2). The 1st defendant was not a trespasser. The 2nd plaintiff was ordered to compensate the 1st defendant for the value of the kibanja as assessed by the Chief Government Valuer. Action against the 2nd defendant was also dismissed as unfounded.

Outcome

Suit dismissed. 1st and 2nd defendants not trespassers. 2nd plaintiff ordered to compensate 1st defendant for the value of the kibanja to be assessed by the Chief Government Valuer within 45 days. 1st plaintiff may recover part payment from 2nd plaintiff.

Facts

The 2nd plaintiff purchased land comprised in Kibuga Block 72, Plot 722 from Yusuf Ssemugabi on 17 March 2015 and obtained certificate of title on 8 May 2015. She subsequently sold the land to the 1st plaintiff on 11 March 2020 for part payment. The plaintiffs alleged that in June 2020 the 1st and 2nd defendants trespassed on the suit land with assistance from the Resident City Commissioner. The 1st defendant claimed lawful ownership of a kibanja measuring 71ft x 48ft x 71ft x 51ft on the same plot, which her father Christopher Kazibwe had acquired from Hajji Burhan Ssekibenge in April 1992. She had lived on the land since 1992 without challenge from successive registered owners. The 2nd defendant claimed to be a lawful tenant under a contract of tenancy. The land had been mortgaged by prior owners and had multiple documented occupants before the 2nd plaintiff's purchase.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants are trespassers to the suit land
  2. Whether the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs are bonafide purchasers for value of the suit land
  3. What are the remedies for parties

Orders

  • Since the 1st defendant's family did not occupy the entire plot 722, there would be no need to cancel the title but to give the 1st defendant's family compensation due to them, based on the current value of the area covered by the kibanja.
  • The value of the kibanja shall be assessed by the office of the Chief Government Valuer which will give its report to court, within 45 days from date of delivery of this judgment.
  • The 2nd plaintiff shall compensate the 1st defendant the value of the land, based on the assessment made by the office of the Chief Government Valuer, within a period of 45 days after its report has been filed in court.
  • The 2nd plaintiff shall pay the defendants for the costs of this suit, which will include the costs of the Chief Government Valuer.
  • The 1st plaintiff may recover the sum paid by him as part of the consideration to the 2nd plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Bonafide Occupancy — Protection of Unregistered Interests — Land Act s.29
A bonafide occupant under Land Act s.29(2) is a person who before coming into force of the Constitution had occupied and utilized or developed any land unchallenged by the registered owner or agent for twelve years or more. Such occupancy need not be evidenced by formal documentation; continuous uninterrupted occupation with acquiescence or knowledge of successive registered owners suffices to create a protected equitable interest.
Kibanja Ownership — Succession and Transfer — Family Land
A kibanja interest constitutes family land under Land Act s.39(4) and s.40 where the family has resided on the land with some degree of continuity. No transaction affecting family land is valid without prior consent of the spouse, and such consent requirement applies equally to purported gifts, powers of attorney, and sales executed by either spouse alone.
Registration of Titles — Subsisting Rights — Section 64(2) Registration of Titles Act
Under Registration of Titles Act s.64(2), any land included in a certificate of title is subject to subsisting rights of any tenant of the land, notwithstanding the same are not specifically notified as encumbrances on the certificate. Such unregistered interests bind a purchaser who obtains registered title and must be respected or compensated by the new owner under Land Act s.36(9).
Proprietary Estoppel — Acquiescence by Registered Owner
Where the legal owner of land stands by and allows an occupier to construct improvements and reside on the land over a prolonged period in the mistaken belief that the occupier has or will acquire legal rights, the doctrine of proprietary estoppel operates to prevent the legal owner from later insisting on strict legal rights. Acquiescence amounting to passive encouragement may deprive an owner of land in favour of an occupier in possession under a mistaken belief when it is unconscionable for the owner to reassert title.
Fraud — Bonafide Purchaser — Failure to Conduct Due Diligence
A purchaser who knows or ought to know that land is in occupation and use of another person other than the vendor, and who fails to carry out due inquiries from the person in occupation before purchase, commits fraud and cannot claim protection as a bonafide purchaser for value. Knowledge of unregistered interests coupled with deliberate acquisition of registered title in the face of protests constitutes fraud sufficient to defeat the registered proprietor's title.
Best Evidence Rule — Parol Evidence Rule — Sections 92 and 97 Evidence Act
Under the parol evidence rule (Evidence Act ss.92 and 97), the best evidence of the contents of a document is the document itself and no extrinsic oral evidence may be introduced to vary such evidence. Oral testimony purporting to explain or vary the express terms of a written agreement is inadmissible and taints the authenticity of the agreement.
Trespass to Land — Action for Possessory Rights — Elements
Trespass to land occurs when a person makes unauthorized entry upon land and thereby interferes or portends to interfere with another person's lawful possession of that land. An action for trespass to land is for enforcement of possessory rights rather than proprietary rights and is committed against the person in actual or constructive possession, not against the land itself.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (20)

  • Pakzad Ali Reza v Kivamuka Andrew & Anor (Civil Suit No. 780 of 2015)
  • Justine E.M.N Lutaaya v Sterling Civil Eng Co. Ltd (SCCA No. 11 of 2002)
  • Odek Alex & Anor v Gena & 4 others (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2011)
  • Kampala District Land Board & Chemical Distributors v National Housing & Construction Corporation (SCCA No. 2 of 2004)
  • Owembazi Enid v Guarantee Trust Bank & 2 Ors (Civil Suit No. 63 of 2019)
  • Serunjogi v Katabira (1988-90) HCB 744
  • Langero Kelly v Okene Richard & Hellen Abuola (Civil Appeal No. 0029 of 2018)
  • Muwanga v Kintu (HC Divorce Appeal No. 135 of 1997)
  • Katuramu v Katuramu (MA No. 026 of 2017)
  • Willmott v. Barber (1880) 15 Ch D 96
  • Taylors Fashions Ltd. v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd [1982] QB 133
  • Hannington Kiuki v George William Musisi (1999) KALR 794
  • David Sejjaka Nolwa v Rebecca Musoke (SCCA 12/1985)
  • Katarikawe v Katuheire (1974) HCB 188
  • Marko Matovu v Mohammed Serruiri & Anor (1979) HCB 174
  • Uganda Post & Telecommunications v Lutaaga (C.A. 36/1996)
  • Fredrick J.K. Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd & 2 Others (SCCA No. 04 of 2006)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 22 of 1992)
  • Hannington Wasswa & Anor v Maria Ongango Ochola (SC. CA No. 22 of 1993)
  • Hagi Abdu Nasser Katende v Mbatudde Haridas & Co. Ltd (C.A.C.A No. 84 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kaddu_and_Another_v_Kazibwe_and_2_Others_(Civil_Suit_648_of_2020)_[2025]_UGHCLD_31_(6_February_2025)
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.