Wakilii

Kasolo & Another v Mulumba & 2 Others (Civil Appeal 72 of 2018)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 1179 · 2024 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from the Chief Magistrate's Court at Nsangi arising from Civil Suit No. 007 of 2015
Decision
Appeal dismissed and judgment of the trial court upheld

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

Held that a purchaser of land must conduct due diligence before purchase and cannot claim land measurements that were not included in the original sale agreement. The appellants purchased land without conducting proper due diligence, failing to consult neighbours or verify boundaries and measurements at the time of purchase. The sketch map with measurements was added to the sale agreement as an afterthought, as evidenced by different handwriting. The trial magistrate's failure to consider locus in quo proceedings did not occasion a miscarriage of justice where all other evidence had been properly evaluated. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed and judgment of the trial court upheld

Facts

The appellants claimed they purchased land measuring 142ft by 59ft from the respondents and produced a sale agreement. When they began construction, they were informed part of the land belonged to a neighbour named Mugerwa. Upon surveying, they found the piece of land measured only 100ft by 20ft. The appellants sued seeking declarations that they lawfully purchased the land, that the resale was fraudulent, compensation, and a permanent injunction. The respondents contended that the land was never measured at the time of sale and that the sale agreement contained no measurements. The trial magistrate found in favour of the respondents. The sale agreement showed a purchase price of UGX 13,000,000 paid on 25/10/2007, had stamps dated 17/11/2002, and contained a sketch map written in different handwriting. The appellants claimed they paid in two instalments but produced no supporting evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact when he disregarded the appellants' evidence and held that the purchase agreement was altered.
  2. Whether the learned trial Magistrate erred in law when he dismissed the appellant's suit without considering the evidence from the locus in quo proceedings.
  3. Whether the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact when he failed to properly evaluate the evidence on record.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Decision of the lower court upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Land Purchase — Due Diligence — Duty of Purchaser
The value of land as valuable property calls for thorough investigations before purchase through due diligence. A buyer who fails to carry out due diligence and buys from fraudsters gets no legal title. Lands are not vegetables that are bought from unknown sellers. Lands are valuable properties and buyers are expected to make thorough investigations not only of the land but also the sellers before purchase.
Documentary Evidence — Parol Evidence Rule
Once words are reduced into a document, oral evidence cannot be adduced to controvert the contents of the documents under the parol evidence rule as provided in Section 91 of the Evidence Act.
Locus in Quo — Effect of Non-Consideration of Proceedings
Where a trial court fails to consider locus in quo proceedings but has properly evaluated all other evidence adduced in open court, no miscarriage of justice is occasioned to a party if the outcome would have been the same based on the evidence heard in open court.
First Appellate Court — Duty and Powers
It is the duty of the first appeal court to make its own findings and arrive at its own conclusions from the evidence on record. However, the appellate court must attach the greatest weight to the opinion of the trial Magistrate who saw the witnesses. An appellate court will not substitute its own opinion for that of the trial court and a judgment of facts will be upheld unless it is satisfactorily shown to be unsound or contrary to the weight of the evidence on record.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (6)

  • Okeno v Republic [1972] EA 32
  • Watt v Thomas [1947] 2 All ER 584
  • Kyotera Victoria Fishnets Limited v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Suit No. 224 of 2014)
  • Namusisi and Others v Ntabaazi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2005)
  • Naome Juma and Another v Nantume and Another (Civil Suit No. 363 of 2010)
  • Odongo Ochama Hussein v Abdul I (Civil Appeal No. 119 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasolo & Another v Mulumba & 2 Others (Civil Appeal 72 of 2018) [2024] UGHC 1179 (10 September 2024)
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.