Karamira v Kiggundu (Civil Appeal No. 93 of 2018)

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 High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Chief Magistrate's finding that the respondent was a bonafide occupant. The respondent's mother had occupied the suit land unchallenged from 1976 until the 1995 Constitution, satisfying the twelve-year requirement under section 29(2)(a) of the Land Act. As a beneficiary of his mother's estate, the respondent inherited the tenancy by occupancy under section 34(2) of the Land Act. The appellant failed to prove that the respondent's wall fence encroached on land belonging to the appellant at the time of purchase.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; respondent's status as bonafide occupant confirmed

Facts

The appellant became registered proprietor of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 29 Plot 1304 on 14 September 2011. He instituted suit in the Chief Magistrate's Court seeking to evict the respondent as a trespasser. The respondent defended on the basis that his mother had acquired a kibanja interest in 1976 from Salim Okello and had occupied the land unchallenged until her death in 2006. The respondent testified that he had lived on the land since childhood in 1976 and built a house in 1982. The previous registered proprietor, Joyce Tebitendwa, had written to the respondent's mother in 1997 requesting her to purchase the land, acknowledging her as an occupant. When the appellant purchased the land, Tebitendwa introduced the respondent as one of the occupants. The appellant offered compensation which the respondent refused. The Chief Magistrate found the respondent to be a bonafide occupant and dismissed the suit. The appellant appealed on three grounds: that the trial court erred in finding the respondent's mother had occupied the land unchallenged from 1976; that the court erred in finding the respondent was a bonafide occupant; and that the court failed to consider evidence of encroachment during the locus visit.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent is a trespasser on the suit land.
2. Whether the respondent's mother was a bonafide occupant of the suit land from 1976.
3. Whether the respondent, as beneficiary of his mother's estate, qualifies as a bonafide occupant under the Land Act.
4. Whether the respondent encroached on the appellant's land by constructing a wall fence beyond the portion previously occupied.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Land Act s.29(2)(a)
• Land Act s.32(2)
• Land Act s.34(2)
• Evidence Act s.101
• Evidence Act s.102
• Evidence Act s.103

Cases cited (6)

• Selle and Another v Associated Motor-Boat Ltd and Others (1968) EA 123
• Zaabwe v Orient Bank and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
• Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 14 of 2011)
• Twinomugisha Alex and Others v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2002)
• De Souza v Karmali Manji (1962) EA 758
• Kalya and Others v Ikagobya (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2012)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

• Fuelex Uganda Limited v National Water and Sewerage Corporation (Civil Appeal 22 of 2020)
• Fuelex (U) Limited v National Water and Sewerage Corporation (Civil Appeal 22 of 2020)
• Mau Insurance Uganda Limited v Agri Exim Limited (Application 3 of 2023)

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