Wakilii

Kayuki Kerespo and Others v Nanyanzi Jane Rose (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 438 · 2026 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court judgment in land trespass suit
Decision
Appeal dismissed; trial court's declaration of respondent's ownership and permanent injunction against appellants 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

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial magistrate's finding that the respondent was the lawful owner of the suit kibanja, having inherited it from her late brother in 1987. The court held that kibanja interests pass to beneficiaries upon the death of the holder and that the respondent's occupation since 1987, supported by documentary evidence, established her ownership. The appellants were properly declared trespassers, as they entered the land without permission and failed to prove any lawful claim to it.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; trial court's declaration of respondent's ownership and permanent injunction against appellants upheld

Facts

The respondent sued the appellants in the Chief Magistrate's Court seeking a declaration that she was the lawful owner of a kibanja at Kiryamakobe, Ntuuli, Kyankwanzi district, a declaration that the appellants were trespassers, a permanent injunction, general damages, and costs. The respondent claimed she inherited the land as her share in the estate of her late brother Yoana Nyanzi in 1987, as confirmed by clan members and an RC1 letter dated 12 October 1988. The first appellant claimed he was the landlord and that the respondent became a kibanja holder in 2007-2008 when she paid him ground rent. The first appellant alleged he gave the suit land to the second appellant (his son) as a gift. The third appellant claimed to have purchased land from the first appellant. The trial magistrate found for the respondent, declared her the lawful owner, declared the appellants trespassers, issued a permanent injunction, and awarded general damages of UGX 2,000,000. The appellants appealed on twelve grounds challenging the trial magistrate's findings on ownership, trespass, and the conduct of locus proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate erred in finding that the respondent is the rightful owner of the suit kibanja.
  2. Whether the trial magistrate erred in declaring the appellants trespassers without specifying the trespass committed by each appellant.
  3. Whether the trial magistrate properly conducted and evaluated the locus in quo proceedings.
  4. Whether kibanja interests acquired through inheritance can be validly held as bona fide occupancy.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Kibanja Interests — Inheritance — Bona Fide Occupancy
When a kibanja holder dies, his or her interests pass to the beneficiaries of the estate in the form of a kibanja, and any person whose share in the estate of the deceased falls under the kibanja continues to own the same kibanja subject to the laws governing holders of bibanja interests.
Land & Property — Bona Fide Occupancy — Acquisition of Interests — Land Act s.29(5)
Under section 29(5) of the Land Act, any person who has purchased or otherwise acquired the interests of a person who qualified to be a bona fide occupant shall be taken to be a bona fide occupant for the purposes of the Act.
Land & Property — Trespass to Land — Elements
Trespass to land occurs when a person makes an unauthorised entry into land belonging to another without permission of the owner of the land.
Civil Procedure — Locus in Quo — Discretion of Court — Proper Conduct
Visiting the locus in quo is at the discretion of the trial court and is not mandatory in every case, but once the court has decided to conduct a locus visit, proper procedures must be followed.
Civil Procedure — Appellate Review — Interference with Discretion
An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of a trial court unless it has come to the conclusion that the exercise of such discretion was manifestly wrong, arbitrary, reckless, injudicious, or contrary to justice.
Civil Procedure — First Appellate Court — Duty to Rehear
The first appellate court is obligated to rehear the case by subjecting the evidence presented to the trial court to a fresh and exhaustive scrutiny and to reappraise the same before coming to its own conclusion, making due allowance for the fact that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Fr. Nasensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tibebaga (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Lovinsa Nankya v Nsibambi [1980] HCB 81
  • Justine E. M Lutaaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Anna Ocayo and Others v Lodik Daniel Warren (High Court Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2027)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kayuki Kerespo and Others v Nanyanzi Jane Rose (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 438 (29 April 2026)
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.