Nasimbwa Annet v Kitamirike Abubakari and Another (Civil Appeal 57 of 2024)
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
The High Court clarified that the appellant owns land measuring 30 feet by 100 feet from the road to St. Theresa school as per the sale agreement of 10 February 2019, with the 100 feet measurement stopping just before the first respondent's old house. The appeal succeeded in part to confirm the appellant's ownership of the land described in the agreement, but was dismissed insofar as the appellant sought additional land beyond what was purchased. The court found the trial magistrate's use of the term 'suit land' without proper definition conveyed the wrong message in what was essentially a boundary dispute.
Outcome
Appellant confirmed as owner of land measuring 30 feet by 100 feet from the road, stopping just before the first respondent's house. Both parties are neighbours with defined boundaries.
Facts
On 10 February 2019, the appellant purchased land measuring 30 feet by 100 feet at Bukolobe Zone, Northern Division, Kamuli Municipality from the first respondent for UGX 3,200,000. The appellant took possession after payment. Subsequently, when the National Water and Sewerage Corporation laid water pipes through the purchased land, the appellant requested the first respondent to adjust the measurements to give her more land, claiming the 100 feet should be measured from off the road reserve rather than from the road itself. This would have encroached on the first respondent's old house. The trial magistrate dismissed the suit, holding that the land purchased was 30 feet by 100 feet from the road and does not extend beyond the first respondent's old house. The appellant appealed, challenging the trial magistrate's findings on ownership and boundary determination.
Issues
- Whether the trial magistrate erred in holding that the appellant is not the owner of the suit land.
- Whether the trial magistrate correctly interpreted the sale agreement regarding the measurement of the land purchased by the appellant.
Orders
- Appeal allowed in part to clarify that the appellant is the owner of land contained in the agreement of 10 February 2019.
- Appeal dismissed in part for purporting to ask for more land than was purchased.
- No order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.