Olango v Too-rom (Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2019)
High Court
· [2020] UGHC 125
· 2020
Appeal Allowed
AI-generated summary
↓ Download
Pin to watchlist
Add to matter
Observed later treatment
Cited — treatment unverified
cited in 4 (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 4 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits.
Citations fading — 5 citing cases on record, 5 in the most recent three data years.
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
Held: The respondent's lease offer expired in 2000. The District Land Board's 2006 extension was invalid; an expired lease cannot be extended, only renewed. The Board failed to follow Land Regulations procedures requiring advertisement and inspection, thereby denying the appellant, who was in actual possession from 1999, his right to be heard and the first option to obtain a lease. Registration in violation of law does not confer indefeasibility. The title was procured illegally and was cancelled. Appeal allowed; land declared to belong to appellant.
Outcome
Appeal allowed; title cancelled and land declared to belong to appellant; appellant registered as owner
Facts
The respondent was allocated a five-year lease by Gulu Municipal Council in 1995 for unoccupied land. Due to insurgency, he did not develop it and the lease expired in 2000. In 2004, he applied for extension. The District Land Board granted him a ten-year extension in 2006 and issued a title. The appellant, from 1999 to 2001, had compensated four customary occupants found on the land, took possession, and constructed buildings thereon. When the respondent attempted construction, he found the appellant in possession. The respondent sued for recovery of land. The Chief Magistrate found for the respondent. The appellant appealed, arguing fraud in the title acquisition, that the Board failed to follow proper procedures, and that he was a bona fide purchaser in possession.
Issues
- Whether the learned trial Magistrate erred when he relied on extraneous material during the visit to the locus in quo thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
- Whether the learned trial Magistrate erred when after finding that the appellant was in effective control of the land, he ruled that the appellant was a trespasser.
- Whether the appellant was a purchaser in good faith of the suit land.
- Whether the respondent committed acts of fraud vitiating his certificate of title by not conducting an open, transparent inspection of the suit land before acquisition.
- Whether the learned trial Magistrate properly awarded general damages and mesne profits.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Judgment of the court below set aside.
- Suit dismissed.
- Judgment entered in favour of the appellant on the counterclaim.
- A declaration is made that the land in dispute belongs to the appellant.
- A permanent injunction issues against the respondent, restraining him, his agents, employees or persons claiming under him, from interference with the appellant's quiet possession and enjoyment of the land.
- An order directing the Commissioner Land Registration to cancel the defendant's title to the 0.197 hectares of land comprised in LRV 3703 Folio 13 Plot 23 Perry Okech Road, and instead register the appellant as owner thereof.
- Costs of the suit, the counterclaim and the appeal awarded to the appellant.
Rules and key headnotes
Appellate Review — Duty of First Appellate Court
It is the duty of a first appellate court to re-hear the case by subjecting the evidence presented to the trial court to a fresh and exhaustive scrutiny and re-appraisal before coming to its own conclusion. In a case of conflicting evidence the appeal court has to make due allowance for the fact that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses, it must weigh the conflicting evidence and draw its own inference and conclusions.
Locus in quo — Purpose and Limits of Evidence Taken at Site Visit
The practice of visiting the locus in quo is to check on the evidence by the witnesses, and not to fill gaps in their evidence for them or lest Court may run the risk of turning itself a witness in the case. The court must limit its inspection to the specific aspects of the case as canvassed during the oral testimony in court and to testing the evidence on those points only.
Irregularity in Proceedings — Miscarriage of Justice Test
No decree may be reversed or modified for error, defect or irregularity in the proceedings, not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the court. A court will set aside a judgment on the ground of a misdirection or improper admission or rejection of evidence only if the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. A miscarriage of justice occurs when it is reasonably probable that a result more favourable to the party appealing would have been reached in the absence of the error.
Indefeasibility of Title — Exceptions for Fraud or Illegality
Section 59 of The Registration of Titles Act guarantees that a title deed is conclusive evidence of ownership of registered land. A title deed is indefeasible, indestructible or cannot be made invalid save for specific reasons listed in sections 64, 77, 136 and 176 of The Registration of Titles Act which essentially relate to fraud or illegality committed in procuring the registration. Registration of a title to land is not absolute and is defeasible where the creation of such title was not in accordance with the applicable law.
Fraud in Land Transactions — Burden and Standard of Proof
In seeking cancellation or rectification of title on account of fraud in the transaction, the alleged fraud must be attributable to the transferee. It must be brought home to the person whose registered title is impeached or to his or her agents. The burden of pleading and proving that fraud lies on the person alleging it and the standard of proof is beyond mere balance of probabilities required in ordinary civil cases though not beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases.
Leases — Distinction Between Extension and Renewal of Expired Lease
Once the lease expires, the relation of landlord and tenant ceases and in that case the lease cannot be extended but can only be renewed. An extension may only be made before expiry of the lease and takes effect on the last day of the unexpired term. Renewal may be made before or after expiry; it takes effect immediately and legally creates a new lease agreement between the parties. An expired contract no longer legally exists and therefore cannot be extended. It is generally against public policy for a public agency to extend an expired contract.
Public Land Allocation — Right to Be Heard for Possessory Occupants
Persons with valid possessory interests in land, whether described as squatters, tenants of a tentative nature, licensees with possessory interest, or bona fide occupiers, are protected from administrative injustice. Where a person with a valid possessory interest in land applies for title to the same land, the land management agency is required to observe rules of natural justice. The occupant has the right to be heard if the land is to be alienated to another person. Sitting tenants should be given the first priority to lease land if it is being leased.
Legislation cited (20)
- Civil Procedure Act s.70
- Registration of Titles Act s.59
- Registration of Titles Act s.64
- Registration of Titles Act s.77
- Registration of Titles Act s.136
- Registration of Titles Act s.176
- Registration of Titles Act s.54
- Land Act s.59(8)
- Land Act s.91(2)(e)
- Land Act s.91(2)(f)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 art.241(1)(a)
- Public Lands Act, 1969
- Evidence Act s.166
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 18 rule 14
- Public Lands Rules S.I 201-1 Regulation 10
- Land Regulations, S.I. 16 of 2001 rule 98
- Land Regulations, S.I. 100 of 2004 rule 96
- Land Regulations, 2004 Regulation 23(2)(a)
- Land Regulations, 2004 Regulation 26(1)
- Land Regulations, 2004 Regulation 27(1)
Cases cited (24)
- Father Nanensio Begumisa and three Others v Eric Tiberaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2000)
- Lovinsa Nankya v Nsibambi [1980] HCB 81
- Fernandes v Noroniha [1969] EA 506
- De Souza v Uganda [1967] EA 784
- Yeseri Waibi v Edisa Byandala [1982] HCB 28
- Nsibambi v Nankya [1980] HCB 81
- Frazer v Walker [1967] AC 569
- Kampala Bottlers Limited v Damanico Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
- Sejjaaka Nalima v Rebecca Musoke (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1985)
- Uganda Posts and Telecommunications v AKPM Lutaaya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1995)
- Fredrick JK Zaabwe v Orient Bank and 5 others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
- Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
- Sebuliba v Cooperative bank Limited [1987] HCB 130
- M Kibalya v Kibalya [1994-95] HCB 80
- Dr Adeodanta Kekitiinwa and three others v Edward Maudo Wakida (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2007)
- Max Norton and Long Outdoor Advertising v. John McCaskill, dba City Sign Co., 12 S.W.3d 789, 793-94 (Tenn.2000)
- Kampala Distributors Land Board and Chemical Distributors v National Housing and Construction Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2004)
- Kampala District Land Board and Another v Venansio Babweyaka and others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
- Matovu M, Mulindwa J and Munyanga J v Sseviiri and Uganda Land Commission [1979] HCB 174
- James Joram Nyaga and another v. The Hon. Attorney General and Another, H.C. Misc Civil Application No. 1732 of 2004(K)
- Chemei Investments Limited v. Attorney General and Others, H. C. Civil Petition No. 94 of 2005(K)
- Milan Kumar Shah and two others v. City Council of Nairobi and another, H.C. Misc Civil Application No. 1024 of 2005(K)
- CR Patel v The Commissioner Land Registration and two others (High Court Civil Suit No. 87 of 2009)
- Fender v St John-Mildmay [1938] AC 1
Cases citing this judgment (4)
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.
- Rutebe Farmers Cooperative Society Ltd v Muhanguzi & 22 Others (Civil Suit 54 of 2012)
- Lukyamuzi v Kajimba & Another (Miscellaneous Application 250 of 2022)
- Egaddu and Another v Registrar of Tittles and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 3199 of 2016)
- Nteiraho and Another v Kabagambe and 4 Others (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2023)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.
Olango v Too-rom (Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2019) [2020] UGHC 125 (14 August 2020)
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.