Wakilii

Kirumira v Birungi and 2 Others (HCCS NO. 44 2021)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 171 · 2025 Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declarations of ownership and cancellation of property transfer
Decision
Plaintiff's suit dismissed; counterclaim dismissed; plaintiff ordered to vacate property and hand over possession to registered proprietor

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 both the plaintiff's suit and the counterclaim. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a memorandum of understanding or business arrangement with the 1st defendant regarding real estate transactions. The 1st defendant was found to have operated her own real estate business independently before meeting the plaintiff. The court rejected the plaintiff's claim that deposits he made to the 1st defendant's account financed her business or gave him ownership rights in the suit property. The court also found the 3rd defendant's evidence of purchasing the property to be contradictory and unreliable, dismissing the counterclaim for trespass. The plaintiff was ordered to vacate the property within 30 days.

Outcome

Plaintiff's suit dismissed; counterclaim dismissed; plaintiff ordered to vacate property and hand over possession to registered proprietor

Facts

The plaintiff and 1st defendant cohabited for eight years from 2011 and had two children. The plaintiff claimed they had a business arrangement under a memorandum of understanding whereby he provided funds to purchase real estate properties registered in the 1st defendant's name for resale. The suit property was registered in the 1st defendant's name in November 2019 and transferred to her mother (2nd defendant) in August 2020. The 2nd defendant subsequently sold the property to the 3rd defendant in October 2020. The plaintiff alleged the transfer and sale were fraudulent and sought declarations of ownership. The 1st defendant denied any business arrangement, asserting she operated an independent real estate business since 2007, before meeting the plaintiff. She claimed she purchased the suit property from proceeds of other property sales and gifted it to her mother. The 3rd defendant counterclaimed for trespass, alleging the plaintiff forcefully entered the property in January 2021.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff and the 1st defendant executed the alleged memorandum of understanding dated 30/01/2011?
  2. Whether there was a business arrangement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant?
  3. Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants fraudulently dealt with the suit property?
  4. Whether the 3rd defendant purchased the suit property?
  5. Whether the counter-defendant/plaintiff is a trespasser on the suit property?

Orders

  • The plaintiff's suit is dismissed.
  • The 3rd defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is ordered to vacate the suit property within 30 days from the date of judgment.
  • The plaintiff shall hand over the suit property to the registered proprietor, the 2nd defendant.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs of the suit and counterclaim.

Rules and key headnotes

Burden of Proof — Existence of Business Arrangement
The party who desires the court to give judgment as to any legal right dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. Where a plaintiff claims a business arrangement existed, he bears the burden of proving the arrangement and that funds he provided were used for the alleged business purpose.
Documentary Evidence — Proof of Signature
Where a document is alleged to have been signed by any person, the signature of such person must be proved. A party who presents a document for identification but fails to have it exhibited or to prove the signature thereon has not discharged the burden of proving the document's authenticity.
Witness Credibility — Contradictions and Dishonesty
Evidence riddled with dishonesty and contradiction destroys the veracity and confidence the court would otherwise have in a witness. Where a party's testimony contains material inconsistencies, the court is entitled to reject that evidence.
Registered Proprietor — Power of Disposition
A person registered as proprietor of land has the liberty and power to dispose of the property as they wish under section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act. A person who is neither a legal spouse nor has a proven legal or equitable interest in the property lacks locus standi to question how the registered proprietor disposes of the property.
Adverse Inference — Failure to Call Material Witness
The omission to call a material witness without reasonable explanation who might have been able to give evidence on a material issue entitles the court to draw an adverse inference. Where a party relies on a bank statement in another person's name but fails to call that person to verify the transaction, the court may reject the evidence as lacking merit.
Pleadings — Party Bound by Pleadings
A party is bound by their pleadings. Pleadings define with clarity and precision the matters in controversy to enable parties to prepare their cases. A party cannot succeed on a case not set up in the pleadings or change their case at trial except by amendment. Material inconsistencies between pleadings and evidence may result in failure to discharge the burden of proof.
Conduct of Parties — Relevance to Proof
The conduct of a party immediately before and after an alleged incident is relevant evidence. Inordinate delay in reporting an alleged serious wrong to authorities may be conduct incompatible with the circumstances described and may undermine the credibility of the allegation.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (12)

  • Khatijabai Jiwa Hasham v Zenab d/o Chandu Nansi [1957] 1 EA 38
  • Aziz Kalungi Kasujja v Naune Tebekanya Nakakande (SCCA No. 63 of 1995)
  • Frederick Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd & 5 Ors (SCCA No. 4 of 2006)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Domanico (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 22 of 1992)
  • David Sejjaaka Nalima v Rebecca Musoke (SCCA No. 12 of 1995)
  • Robert Lusweswe v GW Kasule & Anor (Civil Suit No. 1010 of 1983)
  • Justine EMN Lutaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd (SCCA No. 11 of 2002)
  • Sheik Muhammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (CA No. 4 of 1987)
  • Ahuja Investments Ltd v Victorygame Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 2382 (Ch)
  • Pushpa d/o Raojibhai M Patel v The Fleet Transport Company Ltd [1960] 1 EA 1033
  • Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd United Kingdom Supreme Court [2021] UKSC at 33
  • Interfreight Forwarders v East African Development Bank [1990-1994] EA 117

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kirumira_v_Birungi_and_2_Others_(HCCS_NO._44_2021)_[2025]_UGHCLD_171_(18_August_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.