Mpairwe and 2 Others v Byarhanga (Civil Appeal 21 of 2023)
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
Held that where a vendor fails to deliver land under an initial sale agreement and offers alternative land in substitution, which the purchaser accepts and which is documented in a handover agreement signed by both parties, the purchaser becomes the lawful owner of the substitute land. The Parole Evidence Rule under Evidence Act s.92 excludes oral evidence to vary or contradict a written agreement. A party cannot depart from pleadings to raise new claims such as duress or coercion which were not pleaded. Appeal dismissed.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs. Respondent confirmed as lawful owner of the suit land and entitled to compensation therefrom. Order for delivery of vacant possession to Respondent affirmed.
Facts
In September 2016, the Respondent purchased 12 acres of land from the 1st Appellant for UGX 20,000,000 under a sale agreement. In January 2019, when the Respondent went to inspect the land, he discovered the 2nd Appellant (husband of the 1st Appellant) had sold it to other buyers. The 2nd Appellant apologised and offered the Respondent alternative land partly covered with a big stone (the suit land), which the Respondent accepted and a handover document was executed. In 2018, the 1st and 2nd Appellants sold the same suit land to the 3rd Appellant. The Respondent alleged the Appellants connived to deprive him of the land so the 3rd Appellant could claim compensation from the Government for stones needed for road construction. The trial Magistrate found in favour of the Respondent and ordered the 3rd Appellant to deliver vacant possession. The Appellants appealed, arguing the trial Magistrate failed to properly evaluate the evidence and that there was no valid substitution of the originally purchased land with the suit land.
Issues
- Whether the trial Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence to conclude that the suit land belongs to the Respondent.
- Whether there was valid substitution of the originally purchased land with the suit land.
- Whether the trial Magistrate erred in ordering the 3rd Appellant to hand over vacant possession of the suit land to the Respondent.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the Respondent.
- Declaration that the suit land situate at Itutwe village, Waaki Parish, Kihungya sub-county, Buliisa District belongs to the Respondent.
- Respondent entitled to any compensation from the suit land.
- Order that the 3rd Appellant hand over vacant possession of the suit land to the Respondent affirmed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.7
- Evidence Act s.92
Cases cited (3)
- Fr. Narcensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tibebaga (SCCA No. 17 of 2002)
- Jani Properties Ltd v Dar-es-Salaam City Council [1966] EA 281
- D.S.S Motors Ltd v Afri Tours & Travel Ltd and Another (HCCS No. 12 of 2003)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.