Masereka v Nyangoma & Anor (HCT-01-LD-CA-0048 OF 2016)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's sale agreement was forged and that the suit land belonged to the respondents. The court held that the appellant's evidence was tainted with deliberate lies and major inconsistencies, including a backdated agreement bearing an anachronistic reference to Kasese Municipality, unsigned by the vendor, and listing fictitious neighbours. The court also found no breach of the right to fair hearing, as the appellant had been given opportunities to present his witness who failed to attend.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; orders of the Chief Magistrate's Court upheld confirming respondents' ownership of the suit land

Facts

The appellant instituted a suit in the Chief Magistrate's Court at Kasese seeking to evict the respondents from land he claimed to have purchased from Baluku Simon on 6 July 2007 for UGX 250,000. The first respondent claimed she had purchased the same land from Marahi Banabasi on 12 November 2007 and later sold it to the second respondent on 11 August 2012. The parties had cohabited between 2007 and 2012 and had one child together. The trial magistrate found in favour of the respondents, concluding that the appellant's sale agreement was forged. The appellant's agreement bore the words "Kasese Municipality" despite being dated 2007, three years before Kasese Town Council became a municipality in 2010. The vendor did not sign or thumbprint the agreement, and the neighbours listed on it did not own land in the area in 2007. The appellant appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence on record regarding ownership of the suit land.
2. Whether the sale agreement exhibited as PE1 was a forgery.
3. Whether the appellant was denied a fair hearing by the trial magistrate.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the respondents.
• Orders of the lower court upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Evidence Act s.67
• Evidence Act s.69
• Constitution of Uganda Art.28
• Constitution of Uganda Art.28(1)
• Constitution of Uganda Art.44(c)

Cases cited (7)

• Begumisa & Others v Tibebaga [2004] 2 EA 17
• Kamontho v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd [2003] 1 EA 108
• Adam Bale & 2 Others v Willy Kumu (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2005)
• St. Mathew Education Centre Ltd v Makerere University (CACA No. 40 of 1997)
• Famous Cycle Agencies Ltd & 4 Others v Mansukhalal Ranji Karia & 2 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1994)
• Nuuru Kaaya v Crescent Transportation Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2002)
• Uganda Co-Operative Transport Union Ltd v Roko Construction (SCCA No. 35 of 1995)

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.

• Kayemba Ronald Watuwa v Makokha Yafesa and Others (Civil Suit No. 51 of 2018)

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