Nzitatira and Another v Foibi Sebisogi (Civil Appeal No. 008 of 2008)
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 dismissed the appeal and upheld the Grade I Magistrate's finding that the respondent owned the suit land and the appellants were trespassers. The respondent had granted her grandson Dusabe Peter a licence to use the land, which was extinguished upon his death. The purported sale by Dusabe's cohabitant Imerida Mukanjera to the second appellant was invalid, as Imerida had no lawful ownership. The transaction was tainted with fraud, conducted without involving the rightful owner or family members. The appellants were ordered to vacate immediately and permanently enjoined from any dealings with the land.
Outcome
Appellants ordered to vacate the suit land immediately; permanent injunction granted restraining them from any use or dealing with the land; respondent entitled to vacant possession.
Facts
The respondent, a woman stated to be over 90 years old, sued her biological son (first appellant) and his wife (second appellant) for trespassing on her land. The respondent had granted her grandson Dusabe Peter a licence to build on the land because he was under threat from the first appellant. Dusabe died intestate and unmarried, having cohabited with Imerida Mukanjera. After Dusabe's death, the respondent resumed cultivating the land. The second appellant claimed to have purchased the land from Imerida Mukanjera, asserting it was a marriage gift to Imerida from the respondent. The trial court found for the respondent, holding that the land belonged to her, the appellants were trespassers, and ordered them to vacate. The appellants appealed. The High Court found no valid marriage between Dusabe and Imerida, and held that the purported sale by Imerida to the second appellant was invalid and tainted with fraud, as Imerida had no ownership interest and the transaction excluded the rightful owner and family members.
Issues
- Whether the suit land belonged to the plaintiff/respondent.
- Whether the defendants/appellants trespassed on the suit land.
- Whether the purported sale of land by Imerida Mukanjera to the second appellant was valid.
- What remedies are available to the parties.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Defendants/Appellants shall immediately stop trespassing on the Plaintiff's/Respondent's land.
- Respondent or her agents and/or successors are entitled to vacant possession of the suit land.
- Permanent injunction prohibiting the Appellants from use, occupation or in any other way dealing with the suit land.
- Appellants shall jointly and severally pay the Respondent the costs incurred in the Lower Court and this Appeal.
Rules and key headnotes
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.