Rugogamu v Kabale (Civil Appeal No. 058 of 2015)

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 Court of Appeal, sitting on a second appeal, held that the grounds raised no question of law as required by Section 72 of the Civil Procedure Act. The appellant's complaint that the High Court failed to appraise the receipts was a factual matter, and his reliance on the Land Reform Decree procedure was an attempt to introduce new evidence and arguments never raised at trial or on first appeal. A second appellate court is precluded from questioning findings of fact supported by evidence and has no discretion to hear additional evidence under Rule 32. The disputed receipts were also found to be in a third party's name, not the appellant's. The appeal was dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the High Court's declaration that the respondent is the lawful owner of the suit land stands

Facts

The dispute concerned ownership of Plot 6A in Kajaho trading centre, Mbarara. The appellant claimed he was allocated the land by the LC2 executive committee in 1995, paid fees to the local government between 1999 and 2000, and began ferrying building materials, but was blocked by the respondent who had started building. The respondent claimed he was allocated the land by the LC1 allocation committee in 1996. The appellant sued in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Mbarara (Civil Suit 70 of 2010) and succeeded. On the respondent's appeal, the High Court (Civil Appeal 51 of 2013) found the respondent's receipt from Mbarara local government genuine and the appellant's receipt suspicious and apparently tampered with, declaring the respondent the lawful owner. The receipts the appellant relied on, and his application for the land, were in the name of Bakanturaki Africano, who did not testify and whose relationship to the appellant was unexplained.

Issues

1. Whether the first appellate court (the High Court) failed to subject the entire record to fresh scrutiny and arrive at an independent assessment.
2. Whether the grounds of appeal raised questions of law, or of mixed fact and law, as required for a second appeal under Section 72 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Whether the appellant could rely on the Land Reform Decree and Regulations on second appeal when that procedure was neither pleaded nor proved in the lower courts.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.
• Costs of the lower courts awarded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Civil Procedure Act s.72
• Civil Procedure Act s.74
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 32
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 32(2)
• Land Reform Decree s.5(2)
• Land Reform Decree s.6
• Land Reform Regulations Reg.1
• Land Reform Regulations Reg.1(2)
• Land Reform Regulations Reg.1(3)

Cases cited (7)

• Henry Kifamunte v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Bakaluba Peter Mukasa v Nambooze Betty Bakireke (Election Petition Appeal No. 04 of 2009)
• Ssessazi Kalabira v Robinah Nalubega (Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2002)
• Bagula Joseph and 2 others v Lubega George William (Civil Appeal No. 139 of 2014)
• Serufusa Ronald v Zirimenya Jimmy and 3 others (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2013)
• Uganda Development Bank v National Insurance Corporation & GM Combined (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 28 of 1995)
• Blay v Pollard [1930] 1 KB 628

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Nabasa Jolly v Enid Bnnomugisha and Another (Civil Appeal No. 176 of 2017)
• Rugogamu v Erineo (Civil Appeal 58 of 2015)

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