Wakilii

Rwothomio Isaac v Ocaki Pastore and Others [2026] UGHC 747

High Court · 2026 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal to the High Court from a judgment of the Chief Magistrates' Court of Nebbi dismissing a civil suit for declaration of customary ownership, eviction and permanent injunction
Decision
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Chief Magistrates' Court of Nebbi upholding the 1st and 3rd respondents' customary ownership of the suit land confirmed

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, sitting as a first appellate court, dismissed an appeal against a magistrate's finding that customary land belonged to the respondents. A claimant asserting customary ownership must prove that occupation and user were in accordance with customary rules accepted as binding; the appellant's evidence was hearsay, contradictory and uncorroborated, and he admitted the respondents' occupation. A magistrate's preference for one party's evidence after evaluation does not amount to bias, and the burden of proving bias lies on the party alleging it. The locus in quo visit was recorded on the trial file and complied with Practice Direction No. 1 of 2007; the appellant's omission of those minutes from the record of appeal was fatal to that ground. Minor inconsistencies satisfactorily explained are ignored.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Chief Magistrates' Court of Nebbi upholding the 1st and 3rd respondents' customary ownership of the suit land confirmed

Facts

The appellant sued the respondents in the Chief Magistrates' Court of Nebbi seeking a declaration that their use of about two square kilometres of land at Amukwar Village, Pangieth Parish, Alwi Sub-county was unlawful, a permanent injunction, eviction, general damages and costs. He claimed he and the family of the late Yowasi Oni were customary owners, having settled, grazed and lived on the land for over 80 years until the respondents encroached by cultivating in 2008. He said he inherited from his father Yezenia Avuni, who inherited from Yowasi Oni. The respondents claimed they and related families had occupied for about 70 years, tracing ownership to their grandfather Oyulu, and had hired the land to pastoralists ("Balaalo"). The trial magistrate found the appellant's witnesses unfamiliar with the land's history, his occupation unproved, and the defence evidence consistent, and held the land belonged to the 1st and 3rd defendants, dismissing the suit with costs. At the locus in quo, visited on 9 July 2018 with parties and witnesses present, there was no physical occupation or activity by the appellant, but structures of the respondents' tenants existed, and sisal trees planted by the respondents' grandfather were identified.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate failed to properly evaluate the evidence and acted with bias in favour of the respondents.
  2. Whether the locus in quo proceedings were properly conducted and recorded, and whether the trial magistrate erred in relying on his findings there.
  3. Whether the appellant proved, on a balance of probabilities, customary ownership of and interest in the suit land.
  4. Whether the trial magistrate failed to consider material inconsistencies in the respondents' evidence.
  5. Whether the trial court held that the appellant was a trespasser on the suit land.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Customary Tenure — Proof of Ownership by User and Binding Customary Rules
A claimant of customary tenure must prove not merely long occupancy and user of unregistered land but that the occupation was acquired and held in accordance with customary rules accepted in that area as binding and authoritative; where parcels in the area are recognised as belonging to a person or family, ownership may be sufficiently proved by evidence of user.
Evidence — Burden and Standard of Proof — Claim to Customary Land
The burden of proof in a civil claim rests on the party asserting the existence of a fact, though the evidential burden shifts; a plaintiff who relies on hearsay and contradictory testimony, and who admits the defendants' occupation, fails to discharge the burden of proving customary ownership on a balance of probabilities.
Civil Procedure — Judicial Bias — Burden of Proving Apparent Bias in Evaluation of Evidence
A party alleging bias bears the burden of proving it; there is no prescribed formula for evaluating evidence, and a judicial officer's preference for one party's evidence as more convincing, after scrutinising the evidence and giving reasons, does not amount to actual or apparent bias.
Civil Procedure — Locus in Quo — Conduct, Recording and Inclusion in Record of Appeal
A visit to the locus in quo is not mandatory, but where one is held it must be conducted in accordance with Practice Direction No. 1 of 2007 and fully recorded; a retrial may follow only where the record is missing and reliance on the visit occasioned a miscarriage of justice, and an appellant cannot impugn locus proceedings that exist on the trial record but which he omitted from the record of appeal.
Evidence — Inconsistencies and Contradictions — Minor Versus Grave Discrepancies
Minor inconsistencies and discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses may be ignored unless they point to deliberate untruthfulness, while grave contradictions ordinarily lead to rejection of the testimony unless satisfactorily explained.
Civil Procedure — First Appeal — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence and Requirement of Error Below
A first appellate court must re-evaluate the evidence, subject it to fresh and exhaustive scrutiny and reach its own conclusions while making allowance for not having seen the witnesses; it need not reach a different conclusion from the trial court, and will interfere only where the trial court erred in law, fact, or both.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (22)

  • Pandya v Republic (1957) EA 336
  • Father Narsensio Tibebaga and Others v Eric Begumisa (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Baryaruha Marvin v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 149 of 2016)
  • Male Mabirizi v The Kabaka of Buganda (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2018)
  • Magill v Porter; Magill v Weeks [2001] UKHL 67
  • R v Gough [1993] AC 646
  • Ambayo Joseph Waigo v Aserua Jackline (Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2015)
  • Lukubuza George & 3 Others v Nambozo Sauya and Another (Civil Appeal No. 142 of 2012)
  • Bongole Geofrey and Others v Agnes Nakiwala (Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2015)
  • De Souza v Uganda (1967) EA 784
  • Fernandes v Noroniha (1969) EA 506
  • Nsibambi v Nankya (1980) HCB 81
  • William Mukasa v Uganda (1964) EA 698
  • Atunya Valiryano v Okeny Delphino (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2017)
  • Obbo Rajab & Another v Waako James & 7 Others (Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2018)
  • Marko Matovu and Two Others v Mohammed Sseviiri and Two Others (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1978)
  • Juliana Owor v Ann Jane Otim and Another (Civil Suit No. 18 of 2021)
  • Kamo Enterprises Ltd v Krystalline Salt Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2018)
  • Zakaria Onno v Olando Difasi and Others (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2013)
  • Oryem David v Omory Phillip (Civil Suit No. 100 of 2018)
  • Obwalatum Francis v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2015)
  • Alfred Tajor V Uganda (Supra)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rwothomio Isaac v Ocaki Pastore and Others [2026] UGHC 747 (2 July 2026)
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.