Wakilii

Kampefu Farm Ltd v Bunkedeko (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2009)

High Court · [2013] UGHCLD 18 · 2013 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from the Chief Magistrate's Court, Mpigi, challenging judgment in a land trespass suit
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs. Appellant ordered to vacate and deliver possession of the respondent's land within 10 days

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 dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial magistrate's finding that the appellant and respondent held separate registered titles to distinct parcels of land approximately 3.8 kilometres apart. The court held that the appellant, who claimed the respondent's title was fraudulently carved from its own land, failed to prove it had ever occupied the respondent's parcel. Expert evidence established the titles related to different lands. The court found no fraud by the respondent, who had applied for and been granted a lease over vacant unoccupied land. The appellant was ordered to vacate the respondent's land.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs. Appellant ordered to vacate and deliver possession of the respondent's land within 10 days

Facts

The respondent sued the appellant for trespass on land comprised in LRV 2879 Folio 3 Block 384 plot 4, claiming ownership through a lease granted in 2000. The appellant defended, claiming it was the registered owner of LRV 1057 Folio 8 Blocks 385, 393 and 395 plot 5, and that the respondent's title had been fraudulently carved out of its land. The appellant counterclaimed for cancellation of the respondent's title. The appellant claimed it had occupied 510 hectares since 1977 under a lease, but asserted its land now included the respondent's parcel. Expert witnesses including a cartographer, registrar of titles, and district surveyor testified that the two parcels were approximately 3.8 kilometres apart in different estates. The trial magistrate found the appellant's deed plan had been tampered with and exaggerated, showing 1,260 acres instead of the leased 510 acres. The respondent testified he found the land vacant and unoccupied in 1999, applied for it, and was granted a lease after inspection and survey. The trial magistrate found for the respondent and dismissed the counterclaim. The appellant appealed on eight grounds.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent who had never occupied the suit land had better title than the appellant who had been in occupation.
  2. Whether the appellant was a trespasser on the suit land.
  3. Whether the trial court properly evaluated the evidence of the appellant's witnesses.
  4. Whether possession of the suit land should be delivered to the respondent.
  5. Whether the respondent committed fraud in acquiring registration of the suit land.
  6. Whether the respondent whose lease had expired retained an interest in the suit land.
  7. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the appellant's counterclaim.
  8. Whether the trial court had pecuniary jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Judgment and all orders of the trial Chief Magistrate upheld.
  • Respondent granted all remedies awarded by the trial magistrate with immediate effect.
  • Appellant ordered to give vacant possession of land comprised in Block 384 LRV 2879 Folio 3 plot 4 to the respondent within ten (10) days from the date of judgment.
  • Costs here and in the lower Court awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Land Title — Registered Proprietorship — Certificate of Title as Conclusive Evidence
Under section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act, a certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership and cannot be impeached except where covered by exceptions under sections 64 and 176, one of which is fraud.
Fraud — Burden of Proof — Knowledge of Unregistered Interest
Where a person is alleged to have fraudulently procured registration to defeat an unregistered interest of another, there must be proof that the person had knowledge of the unregistered interest. Fraud requires proof of actual dishonesty and knowledge.
Trespass — Title to Sue — Expired Lease
Even where a lease has expired, the lessee retains some interest in the land until the controlling authority deals with it. A holder of an expired lease has superior interest in the land to a third party trespasser. The expiry of a lease does not turn the land into public land nor make the lessee a tenant at sufferance; the estate remains vested in the lessee.
Pleadings — Defence Filed Out of Time — Discretion of Court
Non-compliance with procedure in filing pleadings is not fatal if no parties were prejudiced and no miscarriage of justice was occasioned. Technical irregularities should not impede the delivery of justice under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution where the matter proceeds to hearing on the merits with no objection raised and no prejudice shown.
Appeals — Powers of Appellate Court — Reevaluation of Evidence
An appellate court has powers to re-evaluate the evidence of the parties and to make its own findings of fact.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (11)

  • Uganda Posts and Telecommunications Ltd v Lutaaya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1996)
  • Kampala District Land Board v National Housing Construction Company (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2004)
  • Matovu v Seviri [1978] HCB 171
  • Peters v Sunday Post Limited [1958] EA 424
  • Kihuku & 2 Others v Personal Representative of Sabiiti [1995] KALR 674
  • Assets Co. v Mere Roihi [1905] AC 176
  • Kekitinwa & 3 Others v Wakida [1999] KALR 632
  • Rugambwa & Another v Bwambale & Another [1997] I KALR 72
  • Westmont Land Asia v Attorney General [1999] KALR 785
  • General Parts (U) Ltd & Another v Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2005)
  • Cloud 10 v Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd [1987] HCB 64

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kampefu Farm Ltd v Bunkedeko (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2009) [2013] UGHCLD 18 (22 February 2013)
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.