Wakilii

Kentwiga Falazia v Colombano Mbaguta (Civil Appeal No.245 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 167 · 2026 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal from a High Court decision given in its appellate jurisdiction in a land dispute
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the High Court's decision in favour of the respondent 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

On a second appeal in a sibling land dispute, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's decision in favour of the respondent. The Court held that limitation is a point of law that may be raised at any stage by any party or the court, so the appellate Judge was entitled to find the suit time-barred and the respondent the owner having settled there since 1962. The appellate Judge had properly re-evaluated the evidence and minor inconsistencies in the respondent's dates were immaterial. The appellant's own admission that she was in Jinja and absent when the land was allegedly gifted rendered her evidence hearsay under section 59 of the Evidence Act.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the High Court's decision in favour of the respondent upheld

Facts

The parties are siblings disputing land at Rugarama II Village, Rugarama Parish, Ntara Sub County, Kamwenge District. The respondent claimed he acquired and settled on the suit land around 1961-1962, after relocating from a game reserve, and later brought his elderly parents from Kabale and built a house for them on the land. He also bought his father separate land in Rugarama I, where the father later settled and was buried. The appellant, the respondent's sister, claimed the suit land had been given to her by their late father Zaverio Baruhira as a gift inter vivos in 1969, evidenced by a letter dated 26 February 1969, and that she was living in Jinja at the time. She admitted in cross-examination that she was not present when the land was allegedly given and that her father had "grabbed" land with no owner. The trial magistrate decreed the land to the appellant; the High Court, on appeal, reversed that decision in favour of the respondent, prompting this second appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned appellate Judge erred in law in holding that the respondent settled on the disputed land since 1962 and was protected by the law of limitation.
  2. Whether the learned appellate Judge erred in law in failing to re-evaluate the evidence of PW1, PW2, DW1 and DW2.
  3. Whether the learned appellate Judge erred in law in holding that the appellant's evidence, relied on by the trial magistrate to decree the suit land to the appellant, was hearsay.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Orders of the lower Court upheld.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Limitation — Whether limitation may be raised by any party or the court — Point of law raisable at any stage
Limitation is a point of law which may be raised at any stage of a suit by any of the parties or by the court itself, and is not confined to being pleaded only as a defence by a defendant.
Appeals — Duty of a second appellate court — Findings of fact supported by evidence
On a second appeal the Court of Appeal is precluded from questioning the trial court's findings of fact where there was evidence to support them, even if it might itself have reached a different conclusion, and may interfere only where there was no evidence to support a finding; its task is to determine whether the first appellate court properly applied the principles governing re-evaluation of evidence.
Hearsay — Section 59 of the Evidence Act — Witness not present at the fact in issue
Under section 59 of the Evidence Act oral evidence of a fact that could be seen must be the direct evidence of a witness who says he or she saw it; a witness who admits she was not present when the relevant fact occurred gives hearsay evidence which a court is entitled to reject.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2007)
  • R v Hassan bin Said (1942) 9 EACA 62

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kentwiga Falazia v Colombano Mbaguta (Civil Appeal No.245 of 2019) [2026] UGCA 167 (19 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.