Nambozo v Manana and Another (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2018)

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, sitting as a first appellate court, re-evaluated the entire evidence and held that the trial magistrate had wrongly found the appellant's witnesses contradictory and unreliable. The court found the inconsistencies minor and capable of innocent explanation. It held that allegations of forgery could not be relied upon because the respondents never pleaded fraud with particulars nor put it to the appellant's witnesses in cross-examination. On the evidence, the suit land in Mirembe (formerly Kikyafu) Cell belonged to the appellant, while the respondents' land lay in Kisenyi Cell across the Kampala Road. The appeal was allowed and the appellant declared the rightful owner.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; appellant declared rightful owner of the suit land with vacant possession and costs

Facts

The appellant sued the respondents for a declaration that she was the rightful owner of land and a house at Mirembe Cell, Mbale. She claimed she bought the land in 2005 from Magomu James, who had purchased it from Tabu Zabuloni, who bought it from Magidu Kakoto. She completed an unfinished house and occupied it from 2005 until 2011, when the respondents entered the land and built a house using her building materials. A compensation agreement was executed for the materials, leaving a balance of Shs. 1,134,000/= unpaid. The respondents claimed the second respondent had purchased the suit land from Hassan Kirya in 1994, situated in Kisenyi Cell, and entrusted it to the first respondent. Evidence showed the suit portion lay in Mirembe (formerly Kikyafu) Cell above the Kampala Road, while the respondents' purchased land lay in Kisenyi Cell below the road. The respondents had effected no development on the suit portion between 1994 and 2004.

Issues

1. Whether the trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence on record in determining ownership of the suit land.
2. Whether the inconsistencies in the appellant's witnesses' evidence were major or minor.
3. Whether the alleged forgery of the appellant's sale agreements could be relied on where forgery was not pleaded with particulars.
4. Whether the appellant proved on the balance of probabilities that she was the rightful owner of the suit land.

Orders

• The entire appeal is allowed.
• The judgment and orders of the trial magistrate are set aside, save for the compensation balance of Shs. 1,134,000/= for building materials converted by the respondents.
• The plaintiff/Appellant is declared the rightful owner of the suit land at Mirembe Cell (formerly Kikyafu Cell), Nabuyonga Ward, Northern Division, Mbale.
• An order of vacant possession/eviction is granted.
• Costs of the suit here and in the court below awarded to the appellant.
• No order as to general damages for breach of contract and inconvenience, as none were proved and no contract existed.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.3

Cases cited (5)

• Fr Nasensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tibebaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
• Selle and Another v Associated Motor Boats Co Ltd and Others [1968] EA 123
• Makau Nairuba Nabel v Crane Bank Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 380 of 2009)
• Alfred Tarja v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1967)
• Nagawa Agnes and Another v Segawa Samuel and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 27 of 2012)

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.

• Balinda v Hon. Kibanzanga and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 2 of 2022)

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