Wakilii

Khalid & Another v Obuoja (Civil Appeal 3 of 2022)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 767 · 2024 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 consolidated land suits
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the lower court upholding respondent's ownership and finding appellants to be trespassers is 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

Appeal dismissed. The High Court upheld the lower court's finding that the respondent lawfully purchased the suit land from PW3, the rightful owner, and that the appellants were mere licensees who failed to prove purchase. The court held that oral contracts for land sale are valid but the vendor must testify to prove consideration and title. Evidence from a witness who testified only at locus without appearing at trial was held inadmissible and disregarded. The customary practice that Madi women cannot own land is inconsistent with the Constitution and void, but PW3's constitutional right to own property was recognized.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the lower court upholding respondent's ownership and finding appellants to be trespassers is affirmed

Facts

The respondent purchased land from PW3 (Messia Mahmood) in 2005. The appellants claimed they had purchased the same land in 1993 and 1994 from PW3's brother Shaban Hassan for UGX 20,000 and 30,000 respectively, and had lived on it uninterrupted for 23 years. The respondent began compensation negotiations with occupants of the land, including the appellants. Some occupants accepted compensation and left. The appellants initially participated in negotiations but later claimed ownership and refused to leave. The respondent sued in the Chief Magistrate's Court, which found in his favour. The appellants appealed, arguing they had lawfully purchased the land and acquired title by adverse possession.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate erred in holding that the respondent is the lawful owner of the suit land.
  2. Whether the trial magistrate erred in holding that the appellants were trespassers without considering their evidence of 23 years' possession.
  3. Whether the trial magistrate erred in disregarding the appellants' evidence of purchase of the suit land.
  4. Whether the trial magistrate erred in allowing evidence from a witness who did not testify at trial but only at locus.
  5. Whether the trial magistrate erred in relying on customary practice that a Madi woman cannot own or sell land.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Judgment and orders of the Chief Magistrate's Court of Moyo at Adjumani are upheld.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Oral Contracts for Land Sale — Requirements for Proof
A buyer on an oral contract for the sale of land is in the same position as a buyer on a written contract and both are entitled to sue for damages and specific performance in case of breach, but the vendor must testify in court to affirm that consideration was paid and to establish how he or she came to own the land being sold.
Land & Property — Licensees on Land — Termination of Licence
A licensee on land occupies by permission of the landowner on a temporary basis and upon sale of the land by the owner to a third party, the licence granted to the licensee collapses and the licensee becomes a trespasser if they refuse to vacate.
Evidence — Locus in Quo — Admissibility of Evidence from Witnesses Not Called at Trial
The purpose of visiting the locus in quo is to check on the evidence adduced during the trial; proceedings at locus form part of the court record and witnesses who testify at locus must be recalled to give evidence on oath with the opposite party afforded an opportunity to cross-examine. Evidence from a witness who did not testify at trial but testified for the first time at locus without leave of court and without taking an oath is inadmissible and must be disregarded.
Constitutional Law — Customary Practices — Inconsistency with the Constitution
Where any law or custom is inconsistent with any provisions of the Constitution, the Constitution prevails and that law or custom is void to the extent of the inconsistency. A customary practice that a woman cannot own or sell land is inconsistent with Article 26 of the Constitution which provides for the right to own property by any person in Uganda either individually or in association with others.
Civil Procedure — Duty of First Appellate Court — Evaluation of Evidence
The first appellate court has a duty to review the evidence of the case and to reconsider the judgment appealed from, then make up its own mind but not disregarding the materials before the trial judge, but fully weighing and considering them.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (8)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Katakuwange Mukoba Fred v Mulwanyi Michael (High Court Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2008)
  • John Katarikawe v. William Katwiremu & Onesiziforo Zikampata [1977] HCB 210
  • Masulu Musevuzia Bweya v Bagheizi Zimonia (Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2017)
  • Okello Johnson v Lallan Angella (High Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2019)
  • The Registered Trustees Of The Archdiocese Of Tororo vs Wesonga Reuben Malaba HCT-04-CV-CA-00 96 OF 2009
  • Deo Mats Vs Uganda 1998 KALR 57
  • Olok Francis v Rev. William Pashi (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Khalid & Another v Obuoja (Civil Appeal 3 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 767 (19 August 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.