Wakilii

Kato Paul Nakabale v Kiggundu Kizza (Civil Appeal 128 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 71 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court of Entebbe in Civil Suit No. 009 of 2021
Decision
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Chief Magistrate's Court affirmed

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 the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the access road was his private property. The land sale agreement showed only the dimensions of the appellant's kibanja and did not include the access road. A memorandum of understanding signed by the appellant and neighbouring landowners before the LC1 established that the access road was public and served all adjacent plots. The appellant's allegations of duress in signing the memorandum were unsupported by evidence. The respondent was not a trespasser as the access road did not belong exclusively to the appellant. The award of UGX 4,000,000 in general damages was justified. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Chief Magistrate's Court affirmed

Facts

The appellant purchased a plot of land at Namugonde Zone, Kakindu, Entebbe Municipality on 21 May 2017. The respondent had purchased an adjacent plot on 24 May 2016 and constructed a residential house served by an access road on the eastern wing. Both plots were served by the same access road. In 2021, the appellant began blocking the access road by depositing building materials and erecting a perimeter wall, denying the respondent access to his plot. On 18 February 2021, the parties and neighbouring landowners signed a memorandum of understanding before the LC1 agreeing that the access road would be shared by all adjacent plots. The appellant subsequently sued the respondent for trespass. The Chief Magistrate's Court found in favour of the respondent, declaring the access road public and awarding general damages of UGX 4,000,000. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate erred in finding that the access road was not privately owned by the appellant.
  2. Whether the trial magistrate erred in finding that the access road was public and served all adjacent plots.
  3. Whether the trial magistrate erred in failing to resolve the issue of duress regarding the memorandum of understanding dated 18 February 2021.
  4. Whether the trial magistrate erred in holding that the respondent was not a trespasser on the access road.
  5. Whether the trial magistrate erred in awarding the respondent general damages of UGX 4,000,000.
  6. Whether the trial magistrate erred in granting costs of the counterclaim to the respondent.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Access Roads — Burden of Proof of Private Ownership
Where a party claims that an access road is his private property, the burden of proof lies on that party to adduce sufficient evidence establishing exclusive ownership. A land sale agreement showing only the dimensions of the purchased kibanja, with an arrow indicating an access road outside those dimensions, does not prove that the access road forms part of the purchased property.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Plaintiff's Duty to Prove Affirmative
The burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue in dispute. A plaintiff alleging private ownership of an access road must adduce credible evidence to that effect; mere assertions without supporting evidence are insufficient.
Contract Law — Duress — Burden of Proof
Allegations of duress in signing an agreement must be backed by evidence beyond the mere assertion of the party claiming duress. Courts are guided by evidence, law, and facts, not unsupported assertions.
Tort Law — Trespass to Land — Elements
To establish trespass to land, a plaintiff must prove that the disputed land belonged to him, that the defendant entered upon it, and that the entry was unlawful and without the plaintiff's permission. Where the plaintiff fails to prove ownership of the disputed land, no trespass can be established.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Appellate Interference
An appellate court has no jurisdiction to interfere with an award of general damages unless the trial court reached the award based on wrong principles or the award is unreasonably high or low. In the absence of such factors, the appellate court will not disturb the award.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of Court
An award of costs is discretionary in nature. Costs follow the event and are awarded to the successful party to compensate for part of the loss incurred in litigation. An appellate court may review an award of costs where the appellant succeeds at appeal, but absent legal basis for challenge, the trial court's award will be upheld.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (7)

  • Nanensio Begumisa and three Others v Eric Tiberaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2000)
  • Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co. [1968] EA 123
  • Abdul Hameed Saif v Ali Mohamed Sholan (1955) 22 EACA 270
  • Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
  • J.M Lutaaya v Stirling Engineering Co. (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 011 of 2002)
  • Uganda Wildlife Authority v Kuluo Joseph Andrew (Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2011)
  • Asiimwe Allen v Hajji Salongo Katende (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kato_Paul_Nakabale_v_Kiggundu_Kizza_(Civil_Appeal_128_of_2023)_[2025]_UGHCLD_71_(15_May_2025)
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.