Wakilii

Kasamba v Rutalihamwe (Civil Appeal 19 of 2010)

Supreme Court · [2012] UGSC 15 · 2012 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Third appeal to the Supreme Court from a Court of Appeal decision affirming the High Court's reversal of a Chief Magistrate's decision in a suit for specific performance of a land sale agreement
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal and High Court decisions ordering specific performance in favour of the respondent stand

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 Supreme Court dismissed a third appeal in a specific performance dispute over a land sale. The court held that Jenkins v Green was distinguishable: the issue there was who held the power of selection over unidentified land, whereas here the live issue throughout the lower courts was whether the appellant seller had shown the respondent purchaser the plot on which he built. The court declined to entertain the Jenkins principles, raised for the first time on appeal without supporting evidence. It found the concurrent inference of the two appellate courts — that the appellant showed the respondent the plot — was justified by the appellant's conduct, including suing trespassers on the purchaser's behalf and acquiescing in the construction.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal and High Court decisions ordering specific performance in favour of the respondent stand

Facts

The appellant sold the respondent a plot of land at Kisweka. The sale agreement provided that, on payment of the balance of the purchase price, the appellant would demarcate the plot. The respondent paid the balance on 18 November 1996. Although no surveyor formally demarcated the plot, the respondent contended the appellant showed him the land, which was near the respondent's home at Muhoro, in the presence of witnesses. The respondent brought building materials and constructed a building. When trespassers entered the lockup shops, the respondent — having no transferred title — asked the appellant to sue them, and the appellant successfully did so in Kagadi court. Complaints about the construction later came mainly from local authorities. The respondent sued for specific performance in the Chief Magistrate's Court at Masindi, which found the plot was not demarcated. The High Court reversed, finding the appellant had shown the respondent the plot, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that the principles in Jenkins v Green applied to the facts of the case.
  2. Whether the Justices of Appeal erred in law in drawing inferences of fact without justification in finding that the appellant had shown the respondent the plot sold.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs to the respondent in this Court and in the courts below.

Rules and key headnotes

Sale of Land — Specific Performance — Demarcation versus Showing of the Plot
Where a seller shows a purchaser the plot sold after receiving the balance of the purchase price, and the purchaser constructs a building on it, the seller cannot rely on a contractual term providing for formal demarcation rather than showing to compel the purchaser to vacate, formal survey being relevant only to perfecting transfer of title.
Sale of Land — Application of Precedent — Distinguishing Jenkins v Green
The principles in Jenkins v Green, governing the power of selection where contracted land is unidentified and void for uncertainty, are inapplicable where the identity of the land is not in issue and the real question is whether the seller showed the purchaser the specific plot sold.
Appeals — Points of Law Raised for the First Time on Appeal
A party may raise a question of law for the first time before the Supreme Court only where there is sufficient evidence on the record to support the principle relied upon; a principle not framed, submitted upon, or decided in the courts below cannot found a ground criticising those courts for failing to apply it.
Inferences of Fact — Concurrent Findings of Appellate Courts
An appellate court drawing an inference of fact from proved primary facts does not err where the inference is justified by the conduct of the parties, and a concurrent inference of two appellate courts re-evaluating the evidence will not be disturbed on further appeal where so supported.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Jenkins v. Green 54 D.R 772
  • Pandya v R [1954] E.A. 385
  • Warehousing & Forwarding Co v Jafferali [1969] E.A. 385
  • S.L. Patel & Anor v Dhana Singh [1962] E.A. 32

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasamba v Rutalihamwe (Civil Appeal 19 of 2010) [2012] UGSC 15 (12 November 2012)
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.