Wakilii

Kasamba v Rutalihemwe (Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2008)

Court of Appeal · [2009] UGCA 67 · 2009 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second civil appeal from the High Court's decision on appeal in a land sale specific performance suit
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs; first appellate court's judgment in favour of the respondent upheld

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

On a second appeal from a land sale dispute, the Court of Appeal dismissed preliminary objections, holding that the current Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules do not require a decree in the record of appeal, and that no legal provision requires leave to file this second appeal. On the merits, the Court upheld the first appellate court's re-evaluation of the evidence, finding that since the sale agreement provided the appellant would show the plot on payment of the balance, which was paid, and the respondent had constructed a building on the plot with the appellant's knowledge, the appellant had indeed shown the respondent the land. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; first appellate court's judgment in favour of the respondent upheld

Facts

By agreement dated 11 October 1996, Henry Kasamba (the appellant) sold to Yakobo Rutalihemwe (the respondent) a piece of land measuring 50ft by 100ft from land comprised in Block 48 Plot 71 for 525,000 shillings. The respondent paid 400,000 on execution and the balance of 125,000 on 18 November 1996. Under the agreement, the appellant would show the plot upon payment of the balance. The respondent began developing what he understood to be his plot, but trespassers interfered and his near-complete building was demolished one night. The plot had not yet been transferred into his name. The respondent sued for specific performance to compel sub-division and transfer. The Chief Magistrate dismissed the claim. On appeal, the High Court found the Chief Magistrate had failed to properly evaluate the evidence and decided in favour of the respondent, prompting this second appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal was incompetent for failing to include the decree appealed from and for lack of leave to file a second appeal.
  2. Whether the first appellate court erred in re-evaluating the evidence and holding that the appellant had shown the respondent the piece of land sold.

Orders

  • Preliminary objections dismissed.
  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs to the respondent in this Court and the court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Record of Appeal — Contents — Whether decree required under Court of Appeal Rules
Under Rule 87 of the current Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules, the record of appeal need only contain the judgment or reasoned order and does not require inclusion of the extracted decree.
Civil Procedure — Second Appeal — Whether leave required to file a second appeal to the Court of Appeal
There is no legal provision requiring leave of court before filing a second appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal.
Evidence — Unchallenged Testimony — Effect of failure to cross-examine or adduce rebuttal evidence
Where a party's evidence is not challenged in cross-examination or contradicted by rebuttal evidence, the court may properly accept it as establishing the fact asserted.
Contract Law — Sale of Land — Specific Performance — Performance of obligation to show plot on payment of balance
Where a land sale agreement provides that the seller will show the buyer the plot upon payment of the balance, and the balance is paid and the buyer constructs on the land with the seller's knowledge, the court may infer that the seller performed the obligation to show the plot.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (2)

  • The Executrix of the Estate of the late Christine Mary Namatovu Tibaijuka and Another Vs Noel Grace Shalita Stananzi [1992 - 1993] HCB 85
  • Pandya VR 1957 E.A.355

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasamba v Rutalihemwe (Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2008) [2009] UGCA 67 (14 July 2009)
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.