Wakilii

Lamusa Magidu v. Alamanzani Nsadhu & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2008)

High Court · [2009] UGHC 205 · 2009 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from the judgment of Iganga Chief Magistrate's Court dismissing plaintiff's claim for trespass and eviction
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs to respondents

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) 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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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

Held that a father who executed a deed of gift and delivered possession of land to his son perfected a valid gift. The father could not subsequently revoke the gift orally and transfer the same land to another son. Property having passed to the donee, the donor retained no interest to give away. The second respondent, as the wife who acquired the land jointly during marriage, had matrimonial property rights and could not be a trespasser. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs to respondents

Facts

Lamusa Magidu (appellant) and Alamanzani Nsadhu (first respondent) were half-brothers, sons of Byakika Badiru. Byakika purchased a 10-acre plot at Ndoya Village with his wife Fatina Nabirye (second respondent) around 1983. In 1985, Byakika executed a written deed of gift transferring the land to the first respondent, then an infant. The first and second respondents took possession and built a permanent house. In 2003, Byakika purported to revoke the gift orally and give the land to the appellant, offering the respondents alternative land at Naigobya. The appellant sued for eviction. In 2003, Byakika also signed a memorandum of understanding at the Probation Office confirming the first respondent's ownership and agreeing the land would support the children's education. The trial magistrate dismissed the appellant's claim, holding Byakika had no right to revoke a perfected gift. The appellant appealed, challenging the trial court's evaluation of evidence and its failure to visit the locus in quo.

Issues

  1. Whether Badiru Byakika had any right to withdraw the land that he had given to Alamanzani Nsadhu 19 years back and give it to the appellant.
  2. What remedies are available to the appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Respondents awarded costs of the appeal and costs in the court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Gifts of Land — Perfection of Gift — Requirements for Valid Gift
For a valid gift of land there must be an intention to give and such acts as are necessary to give effect to the intention, either by delivery of the subject matter or by change of possession as would vest possession in the intended donee. A gift may be perfected by deed or by delivery and taking of possession.
Gifts of Land — Revocation of Gifts — Completed Gifts Cannot Be Revoked Unilaterally
Once a donor has executed a deed of gift, delivered possession to the donee, and property has passed, the donor retains no interest in the land and cannot subsequently revoke the gift and transfer the land to another person, whether by writing or orally.
Documentary Evidence — Exclusion of Oral Evidence by Documentary Evidence — Land Act s.91
Under Evidence Act section 91, where the terms of a contract, grant, or disposition of property have been reduced to the form of a document, no oral evidence shall be given in proof of those terms except the document itself or secondary evidence of its contents. A donor cannot revoke a written gift of land by oral testimony alone.
Documentary Evidence — Unstamped Documents — Duty and Penalty Payable Before Admission
An instrument on which stamp duty is chargeable is not admissible in evidence unless it is duly stamped or the party producing it has paid the duty and penalty. An appellate court may order payment of duty and penalty to perfect the document before final judgment, but where other evidence sufficiently establishes the facts, the unstamped document may be disregarded without prejudice to the outcome.
Matrimonial Property — Equal Rights in Marriage — Constitution Art.31(1)(b)
Under Article 31(1)(b) of the Constitution, parties to a marriage have equal rights at, in, and during marriage and at its dissolution. Property acquired during the course of a marriage is matrimonial property in which both spouses have an interest. A spouse cannot be a trespasser on matrimonial property, and a husband cannot alienate matrimonial land without the wife's consent under Land Act section 39.
Locus in Quo — Discretion to Visit — When Visit Not Required
It is within the trial court's discretion whether or not to visit the locus in quo. Where a claim concerns a block of land with no dispute as to boundaries or extent of encroachment, and where the claimant has not proved occupation, a visit to the locus would serve no useful purpose and is not mandatory.
Appeals — Duty of First Appellate Court — Re-evaluation of Evidence
The duty of a first appellate court is to rehear the case by reconsidering all the evidence before the trial court and reaching its own decision on issues of fact as well as law. The parties are entitled to obtain from the appeal court its own findings on the evidence.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (13)

  • Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
  • Father Narsension Begumisa and Others v Eric Tibekinga (S/C Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • David Acar and 30 Others v Alfred Acar-Aliro [1982] HCB 60
  • Yeseri Waibi v Edisa Lusi Byandala [1982] HCB 28
  • E Kange v E Bwana (Civil Suit No. 38 of 1994)
  • Salim Bin Awadh Bin Mbarak Bakharesha v Ramadhan Bin Awadh Bin Mbarak Bakharesha (1956) 22 EACA 55
  • Yokoyada Kaggwa v Mary Kiwanuka and Anor [1979] HCB 23
  • Sunderji Nanji Ltd v Muhamed Ali Kassam [1958] EA 762
  • Fenekansi Semakula v Ezekiel Mulondo [1985] HCB 29
  • Anne Musisi v Herbert Musisi (H.C.D.C. No. 17 of 2007)
  • Peri Sasira v John Mutegeki (H.C.C.S. No. 828 of 1994)
  • Anne Nabukomeko Sempiga v James Musajjawaza Sempiga (H.C.D.C. No. 7 of 2005)
  • Julius Rwabunumi v Hope Bahimbisomwe (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2007)

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.

Lamusa Magidu Vs. Alamanzani Nsadhu & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2008) [2009] UGHC 205 (29 June 2009)
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.