Kagiri and Another v Tamale and 2 Others (Civil Suit 382 of 2020)

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.

Holding

The court held that the plaintiffs acquired an equitable interest in the suit land by purchasing it from the late Stanley Sentongo in 2010, taking possession, and constructing a house. The defendants' subsequent registration was subject to the plaintiffs' existing equitable interest. The court ordered a joint survey to ascertain and carve out the portion sold to the plaintiffs from Plot 2207, and directed that the access road be maintained.

Outcome

Judgment for the plaintiffs; joint survey ordered to demarcate their portion from Plot 2207

Facts

In December 2010, the plaintiffs purchased a portion of land at Muyenga-Bukasa from Stanley Sentongo measuring 25 ft. by 47 ft., with an additional 15 ft. extension and an access road. The plaintiffs took possession and constructed a residential house, occupying it from 2012 without interruption. In 2015, Plot 2207 was created and registered in the names of the first defendant and Stanley Sentongo. In 2017, Plot 2206 was registered in the name of the second defendant. The defendants removed an electricity pole placed by the plaintiffs, constructed a perimeter wall blocking the plaintiffs' access, and denied the plaintiffs' interest in the land. The defendants claimed the plaintiffs were trespassers. The plaintiffs alleged fraud and sought declarations confirming their ownership and orders to facilitate subdivision and transfer of their portion.

Issues

1. Who is the lawful owner of the suit land comprised in Block 246 Plot 2207?
2. Who of the parties is a trespasser on the disputed land?
3. Whether there was any fraud committed by the parties?

Orders

• The Plaintiffs are the owners of the land they purchased from Stanley Sentongo measuring 25 ft. by 47 ft. and 15 ft. as indicated in their sale agreements.
• The portion sold to the Plaintiffs shall be carved off from Plot 2207 where their land is situate.
• The parties with their lawyers and with the participation of the Local Council one Chairperson shall carry out a joint survey to ascertain the portion that was sold off to the Plaintiffs as indicated in their sale agreements.
• The access road shall be maintained as it was when the court visited the locus in quo.
• No order as to payment of damages.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.101(1)
• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.101(2)

Cases cited (2)

• Semakula and Another v Sematimba (High Court Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2013)
• Uganda Posts and Telecommunications v A.K.P.M Lutaaya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1995)

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