Kamya Semu v Eric Balame (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2010)
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 court clarified its earlier decision under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, holding that the appellant is entitled to one-quarter of the entire land comprised in Busiro Block 266 Plot 134. The court found that the decree as extracted, which added the words 'now in dispute', was inconsistent with the original orders. Any land occupied by the appellant in excess of one-quarter is being occupied unlawfully and must be vacated immediately.
Outcome
Court clarified that appellant entitled to one-quarter of the entire land; excess occupation to be vacated
Facts
This ruling concerns clarification of a decision delivered on 28 February 2014 in a land dispute over Plot 134. The original decision awarded the appellant one-quarter of the land and ordered a survey. When the decree was extracted, the words 'now in dispute' were added to paragraph 1, leading the respondent to contend that the appellant was only entitled to one-quarter of the land not in dispute, not the disputed land. The respondent argued that the appellant had wrongly occupied an additional one-quarter of the respondent's land. The record showed that the respondent bought his portion from Goobi, which was supposed to be half of the whole piece of land. On 12 May 2006, Charles Kiddu approached the respondent with an offer to sell a portion of land, but the agreement contained no specific measurement.
Issues
- Whether the decree as extracted was inconsistent with the orders made by the court.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to one-quarter of the entire land or only one-quarter of the land not in dispute.
Orders
- The appellant is entitled to one-quarter of the land comprised in Busiro Block 266 Plot 134.
- Any land occupied by the appellant in excess of one-quarter is being done unlawfully and should be vacated with immediate effect.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.