Mutaba Barisa Kweterana Ltd v Bazirakye & Another (Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2014)
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.
Appeal & case history
Follow this matter from the decision below through each appellate court.
See the court’s words
“[29] As Musoke and Obura, JJA, agree this appeal is dismissed with costs”
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 Court of Appeal, sitting as a second appellate court, dismissed the appeal. It held that the first appellate court properly re-evaluated the evidence and correctly found that the suit land, although technically public land, did not belong to Kabale District Administration and was held under customary tenure by the respondents. The Court agreed that the appellant obtained registration fraudulently, having applied for and procured a certificate of title with full knowledge of the respondents' unregistered customary interests and occupation, intending to deprive them without compensation. Notably, the appellant company, incorporated only in 1980, could not have been the original applicant when the land was applied for in 1974, leaving an unexplained gap in its case.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment ordering cancellation of the appellant's certificate of title stands
Facts
The respondents filed suit in the Magistrates Court of Kabale seeking to recover approximately 4 hectares of land, claiming ownership under customary tenure. The appellant contended the land was public land it had acquired and for which it obtained a leasehold certificate of title. The respondents alleged the title was obtained fraudulently. The land had been applied for in 1974 by unnamed applicants; a Land Committee recommended a lease in 1977 and a lease offer was prepared in 1984. The appellant company was incorporated only in March 1980, after the original application. The land was part of a larger area used communally by the respondents and others for cultivation and grazing, of which the appellant's directors were aware. The trial court found for the appellant, but the High Court on appeal set aside that judgment, found fraud established, and ordered cancellation of the title. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Issues
- Whether the first appellate Judge failed to re-evaluate the entire evidence and wrongly concluded that the suit land was not public land but owned by the respondents.
- Whether the first appellate Judge erred in holding that the appellant obtained registration of the land by fraud.
Orders
- Ground 1 rejected.
- Ground 2 dismissed.
- Appeal dismissed with costs here and below.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Land Reform Decree 1975 s.1
- Public Lands Act 1969
- Registration of Titles Act
Cases cited (6)
- [2003] UGSC 32
- [1958] EA 424
- [1968] EA 123
- Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
- Katarikawe v Katwiremu and Another (1977) HCB 187
- Matovu and 2 Others v Seviri and Another (1979) HCB 174
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.