Wakilii

Rutalihamwe v Ssebugwawo (Civil Appeal 42 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 356 · 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 on trespass and encroachment
Decision
Appellant ordered to vacate the trespassed portion of land 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

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial Magistrate's finding that the Appellant trespassed on the Respondent's registered land. A surveyor's report confirmed that the Appellant's kibanda structure and house extension encroached on the Respondent's land comprised in Block 48, Plot 5. The court found that the trial Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence and that any procedural lapses at locus in quo were cured by the surveyor's report ordered on appeal. The Appellant was ordered to vacate the trespassed portion measuring 10ft by 20ft.

Outcome

Appellant ordered to vacate the trespassed portion of land measuring 10ft by 20ft

Facts

The Respondent, registered proprietor of Block 48, Plot 5 (later re-numbered Plot 90) at Mohorro Trading Centre, sued the Appellant for trespass and encroachment. The Appellant claimed he purchased land on neighbouring Plot 6 in 1976 from Samwiri Bujwera and Yokana Muyigi. The trial Magistrate found that the Appellant, while extending his house on Plot 6, encroached on the Respondent's Plot 5 by moving butcher kiosks and extending construction. A surveyor's report commissioned on appeal confirmed that the Appellant's kibanda structure (No. 5) encroached on Plot 5 by 13ft x 19ft and that House No. 4 slightly encroached. The trial Magistrate had found trespass of 10ft x 20ft. The Appellant appealed on grounds of improper evaluation of evidence and procedural errors at locus in quo.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence on record in finding that the suit land belongs to the Respondent.
  2. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in disregarding the Appellant's evidence.
  3. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in relying on extraneous matters in reaching his decision.
  4. Whether the trial Magistrate followed the correct procedure at locus in quo.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Trespass — Encroachment on Registered Land — Proof of Trespass
Trespass to land is established where a party's unauthorised entry interferes with the registered proprietor's possession, even where the encroachment is slight.
Evidence — Survey Evidence — Use of Surveyor's Report to Establish Boundaries and Encroachment
A surveyor's report commissioned to open boundaries and determine the extent of encroachment constitutes competent evidence to establish trespass where the survey was conducted in the presence of both parties.
Civil Procedure — Locus in Quo — Procedural Irregularities — Effect on Appeal
Procedural lapses in the conduct of a locus in quo visit, including failure to call all witnesses or to measure the extent of trespass, do not occasion a miscarriage of justice where the deficiency is cured by additional evidence adduced on appeal, such as a surveyor's report.
Civil Procedure — First Appellate Court — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
The duty of a first appellate court is to review the record and re-evaluate the evidence as a whole, giving it fresh and exhaustive scrutiny, and to draw its own conclusions of fact. The appellate court should not interfere with the trial court's discretion unless satisfied that the trial court misdirected itself and a miscarriage of justice resulted.

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 Vs Edisa Byandala [1982] HCB
  • David Acar Vs 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_356_(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.