Kanyanya v Owori (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2013)

Observed later treatment

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 of Appeal held that statutory leases to urban authorities ceased to exist on the coming into force of the 1995 Constitution under Article 286, and that a District Land Board could not take over the role of lessor for leases originally granted by a town or municipal council (a former designated authority) under section 59(1)(c) of the Land Act. Accordingly, the Tororo District Land Board had no authority over the suit property when it advertised and leased it to the respondent, rendering the lease invalid. The appellant, having occupied the land, held a reversionary/possessory interest by prescription. The appeal succeeded and the respondent's lease was cancelled.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; respondent's lease cancelled and appellant entitled to vacant possession or compensation

Facts

In 1987 the appellant came into possession of land on Nagongera Road, Tororo, with authorisation of Tororo Municipal Council under the Public Lands Act 1969, obtaining a two-year lease that expired in 1989. He obtained a two-year extension granted in 1990, which also expired. He did not fulfil the building covenant requiring construction of a building worth UGX 100,000,000 within the lease term. After the 1995 Constitution came into force, Tororo District Land Board advertised the land in 1998. The respondent applied, obtained a 15-year lease offer in 2001 and subsequently acquired registered title. The appellant's 2004 application for extension was rejected. In 2007 the appellant re-entered the land and began constructing a foundation. The respondent sued for declarations of ownership, trespass, vacant possession and a permanent injunction. The High Court found in the respondent's favour, declaring him the rightful registered owner and the appellant a trespasser, and the appellant appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence regarding the appellant's interest in the suit land.
2. Whether the Tororo District Land Board had legal authority to re-allocate and lease the suit land to the respondent following the 1995 Constitution.
3. Whether the appellant had acquired a possessory/equitable interest in the suit land entitling him to remain in possession or to compensation.

Orders

• The appeal succeeds.
• The lease granted to the respondent is hereby cancelled.
• The appellant is entitled to vacant possession of the suit land or to compensation from the current occupants, upon agreement of the parties.
• The holders of the cancelled lease are at liberty to seek redress from Tororo Land Board.
• Costs awarded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (10)

• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 286
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 237(1)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 237(5)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 237(7)
• Land Act Cap 227 s.1(m)
• Land Act Cap 227 s.1(n)
• Land Act Cap 227 s.59(1)(c)
• Land Act Cap 227 s.59(8)
• Public Lands Act No. 13 of 1969
• Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 30(1)(a)

Cases cited (7)

• Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3 All ER 935
• Kampala Distributors Land Board v National Housing and Construction Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2004)
• Begumisa v Tibebaaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Bogere Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
• Ojede Adulla Bin Cona v Phoebe Lutalo (Civil Appeal No. 126 of 2012)
• Jetha Brothers Ltd v Mbarara Municipal Council (Civil Appeal No. 111 of 2013)

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.

• Kisawuzi v Oundo (HCT-00-CC-MA 467 of 2013)

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