Wakilii

Okimat v Aguti & Anor (Civil Appeal 56 of 2011)

High Court · [2014] UGHCCD 107 · 2014 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from magistrate grade one's decision in a land trespass claim
Decision
Appeal dismissed and decision of lower court confirmed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Appeal from magistrate's decision in land trespass claim dismissed. The High Court found that the appellant failed to prove ownership on a balance of probabilities, noting inconsistencies in the appellant's testimony about returning purchase money and failing to explain how respondents entered possession. The respondents' evidence of purchasing the land in 1997 was consistent and supported by multiple witnesses, while the appellant's witnesses gave hearsay evidence of no evidential value.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed and decision of lower court confirmed

Facts

The appellant claimed he purchased land measuring three gardens from Okiya Yason in 1982 for three head of cattle and 100,000 shillings, and that the first respondent trespassed on the land in 1999 and built a house. The first respondent is the appellant's cousin, and the second respondent is her husband. The respondents claimed they purchased the land from the appellant in 1997 for two head of cattle and 100,000 shillings, with the sale witnessed by multiple people. The appellant claimed he returned the purchase money because he did not like the second respondent, but provided inconsistent testimony about the circumstances and did not explain how the respondents entered possession. The respondents' witnesses consistently testified about the 1997 purchase, while the appellant's witnesses gave hearsay evidence of no evidential value.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence in the land trespass claim.
  2. Whether the appellant proved his claim to the suit land on a balance of probabilities.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • No order as to costs as the trial magistrate did not award costs in the lower court.
  • Decision of the lower court confirmed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Balance of Probabilities in Land Trespass Claims
A claimant in a land trespass action must prove ownership and unlawful entry on a balance of probabilities. Failure to provide consistent testimony or explain how alleged trespassers entered possession undermines the claim.
Evidence — Hearsay Evidence — Evidential Value
Witnesses who admit in cross-examination that their testimony is based on hearsay have no evidential value in establishing material facts.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Duty of Appellate Court
The duty of an appellate court is to re-evaluate the evidence adduced in the lower court and arrive at its own conclusion, bearing in mind that the trial court had an opportunity to observe the demeanour of witnesses.

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.

  • [2026] UGHCCRD 18

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Okimat v Aguti & Anor (Civil Appeal 56 of 2011) [2014] UGHCCD 107 (27 August 2014)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.