Wakilii

Rutalihamwe v Ssebugwawo (Civil Appeal 42 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 358 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court judgment in a trespass suit
Decision
Appellant to vacate the trespassed portion measuring 10ft by 20ft

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

Held that the appellant trespassed on the respondent's registered land by extending a kibanda structure and house beyond his plot boundary. A surveyor's report confirmed the encroachment. The trial court's failure to precisely measure the trespass at locus was cured by the appellate court ordering a survey. Procedural lapses at locus did not occasion a miscarriage of justice where the appellant was present and given opportunity to clarify evidence. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Appellant to vacate the trespassed portion measuring 10ft by 20ft

Facts

The respondent, registered proprietor of Block 48 Plot 5 (later Plot 90) at Mohorro Trading Centre, sued the appellant for trespass. The appellant purchased land on neighbouring Plot 6 in 1976 from Samwiri Bujwera and Yokana Muyigi. The appellant extended his house and constructed a kibanda structure, which encroached on the respondent's land. The trial Magistrate found trespass and ordered the appellant to vacate a 10ft by 20ft portion. On appeal, a surveyor confirmed that the appellant's kibanda (structure No. 5) encroached by 13ft by 19ft and House No. 4 encroached slightly on Plot 5.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence on record in finding that the appellant trespassed on the respondent's land.
  2. Whether the trial Magistrate properly conducted the locus in quo visit according to prescribed procedure.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Judgment and orders of the lower court upheld.
  • Appellant to vacate the portion of land measuring 10ft by 20ft trespassed upon.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Trespass — Definition and Elements — Unauthorised Entry Interfering with Possession
Trespass to land is established where a party's unauthorised entry interferes with another's possession of registered land, regardless of the extent of encroachment.
Evidence — Survey Evidence — Use of Survey Reports to Establish Boundary Disputes
A surveyor's report conducted in the presence of both parties and subject to cross-examination constitutes reliable evidence to establish the extent and fact of encroachment in boundary disputes.
Civil Procedure — Locus in Quo — Procedural Requirements and Effect of Non-Compliance
Procedural lapses in conducting a locus in quo visit, including failure to call all witnesses or to measure precisely, do not occasion a miscarriage of justice where the appellant was present, given opportunity to clarify evidence, and the deficiency was cured by subsequent survey evidence on appeal.
Civil Procedure — Appellate Review — Duty of First Appellate Court to Re-evaluate Evidence
The first appellate court has a duty to re-evaluate evidence adduced before the trial court as a whole by giving it fresh and exhaustive scrutiny, but should not interfere with the trial court's discretion unless satisfied that the trial court misdirected itself resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

Cases cited (5)

  • Stewards of Gospel Talents v Nelson Onyango (HCCA No. 14 of 2008)
  • Fr. Narsensio Begumisa & Ors v Eric Tibebaga (SCCA No. 17 of 2002)
  • Justine Lutaaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Co. (SCCA No. 11 of 2002)
  • Yeseri Waibi v Edisa Byandala [1982] HCB
  • David Acar v Alfred Aliro [1982] HCB 60

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rutalihamwe_v_Ssebugwawo_(Civil_Appeal_42_of_2023)_[2023]_UGHCLD_358_(28_July_2023)
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.