Wakilii

Kebba Stephen and Another v Mugoya Joseph (Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 5 · 2026 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court decision in land trespass suit
Decision
Appeal dismissed; lower court judgment and orders affirmed

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. 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

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's finding that the respondent owned the disputed land measuring 15ft by 90ft and that the appellants were trespassers. The court held that measurement at locus in quo was unnecessary where the appellants failed to adduce credible evidence of the size and boundaries of land they claimed to have purchased, particularly where their vendor's title documents showed inconsistent measurements that could not support their claim.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; lower court judgment and orders affirmed

Facts

The respondent purchased land in 1977 and 1978 and took immediate possession. In 2013, the appellants began trespassing on a portion measuring 15ft by 90ft. The appellants claimed they purchased land measuring 30ft by 112ft by 20ft in 2006 from Omar Jourma Makata, who allegedly inherited it from his late father Bumali Makata. The appellants' evidence showed that Bumali Makata had purchased only 35ft from Wilson Gadala in 1982, creating an inconsistency with the larger dimensions claimed. The respondent had been in continuous possession for over 30 years with a residential house and grinding machine on the land. The trial magistrate found for the respondent, declared the appellants trespassers, and issued a permanent injunction.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate erred in failing to measure the respective pieces of land during locus in quo to determine whether trespass existed
  2. Whether the trial magistrate erred in holding that the suit land belonged to the respondent and declaring the appellants trespassers without credible evidence
  3. Whether the trial magistrate failed to properly evaluate the evidence on record

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Grounds 1, 4 and 5 of the memorandum of appeal struck off for being too general.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Locus in Quo — Purpose and Scope — Verification of Evidence Already Adduced
The purpose of a locus in quo visit is to verify evidence already adduced in court by witnesses, not to constitute the court as a witness or to substitute personal observation for evidence. Where a party fails to adduce sufficient and credible evidence in court regarding the size and boundaries of land, there is no basis for verification at locus in quo.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Inconsistencies — Effect on Credibility
Where a party's documentary evidence contains material inconsistencies regarding the size of land allegedly purchased, and the vendor's own testimony contradicts both the documents and his prior sale agreement, such evidence lacks credibility and cannot establish ownership of the disputed land.
Land & Property — Title — Nemo Dat Rule — Vendor Cannot Give Better Title Than Possessed
Under the nemo dat rule, no one can give a better title than he himself possesses. Where a vendor's predecessor in title purchased only 35ft of land, the vendor cannot validly transfer a larger parcel to a subsequent purchaser, and such purchaser acquires no interest in land beyond what the vendor's predecessor originally acquired.
Land & Property — Trespass — Elements — Unauthorized Interference with Lawful Possession
Trespass to land occurs where there is unauthorized interference with lawful possession, whether physical or legal. Long occupation of land for over 30 years supports a finding of lawful possession and knowledge of boundaries.
Civil Procedure — Grounds of Appeal — Vague and General Grounds — Striking Out
A memorandum of appeal must set forth grounds concisely and under distinct heads without argument or narrative. Grounds of appeal that are too general and fail to specify the ratio decidendi or conclusions alleged to have been wrongly decided should be struck out.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (7)

  • Fr. M. Begumisa and Others v E. Tibegana (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2003)
  • Mukasa v Uganda (1964) EA 698
  • DSS Motors Limited v Afri Tours and Travels Limited and Amin Tejani (HCT-00-CC-0012 of 2003)
  • Bishopsgate Motor Finance Corporation Ltd v Transport Brakes Ltd [1949] KB 336
  • Justine E.M.N. Lutaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Co. Ltd (Civil Suit No. 484 of 1995) [2018] UGHCLD 24
  • National Insurance Corporation v Pelican Air Services (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2003)
  • Patrick Mukasa v Andrew Douglas Kanyike (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2022)

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.

Kebba Stephen and Another v Mugoya Joseph (Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2024) [2026] UGHC 5 (7 January 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.