Mulyanti & Anor v Bateringaya & 4 Ors (Civil Appeal No. 0016 of 2010)

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 Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's finding that the late Moses Mulyanti occupied the suit land as a caretaker/licensee, not as a lawful or bonafide occupant under section 29 of the Land Act. A person on land under a licence from the registered owner cannot be a lawful or bonafide occupant and cannot pass any interest to heirs. The appellants, administrators of Moses Mulyanti's estate, failed to discharge the evidential burden of proving lawful or bonafide occupancy. They were not entitled to compensation, as the main house had been sold with the land in 1968 and damage to the semi-permanent structures was not specifically proved. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; trial court's finding that appellants were caretakers/licensees and not lawful or bonafide occupants upheld, and order for vacant possession affirmed

Facts

The suit land at Kibuga Block 27, Plots 9, 17 (now 556) and 126 in Makerere Kikoni was originally owned by the late Besweri Mulyanti, who sold it to Godfrey Lule in 1968, who then sold it to Basil Bataringaya (the respondents' father) later in 1968. Besweri's son, the late Moses Mulyanti, initially challenged the sale by lodging a caveat and suing in 1970, but that dispute was settled by his withdrawal of the caveat and recognition of Bataringaya as owner. Bataringaya then allowed Moses Mulyanti to remain on the land as a caretaker. Moses Mulyanti lived on the land until his death in 2001. The appellants, administrators of his estate, sued the respondents (Bataringaya's beneficiaries) claiming Moses Mulyanti and his beneficiaries were lawful or bonafide occupants, and sought declarations, an injunction, and damages. The trial judge found them to be mere caretakers/licensees and ordered them to vacate. They appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the trial judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence and thereby reached a wrong conclusion.
2. Whether the appellants (or the late Moses Mulyanti) were lawful or bonafide occupants of the suit land.
3. Whether the appellants were entitled to the remedies and reliefs sought, including compensation for developments.
4. Whether the respondents as registered proprietors were entitled to vacant possession and to evict the occupants.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed on all grounds.
• Appeal dismissed with costs here and at the High Court.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Land Act s.29(1)(b)
• Land Act s.29(2)
• Land Act s.29(4)
• Land Act s.29(5)
• Land Act s.32
• Succession Act s.3
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 237(8)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 30(1)(a)

Cases cited (9)

• Pandya vs. R [1957] EA 336
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Kampala District Land Board v Venansio Babweyaka (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
• Kampala City Council v National Housing and Construction Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2004)
• Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
• George Tuhirirwe v Caroline Owamuhaada (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2007)
• Thomas V Sorrell 124 ER 1098
• Rajwani v Degamwala [1950] EACA 37
• Pius Okello Umoni v Obbo Christopher (Civil Suit No. 86 of 1999)

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.

• Kazibwe Sam v Bunyangabu District Land Board and Another (HCT-01-LD-CS-0030-2020)

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