Wakilii

Sendegeya Sam v Registered Trustees Of The Province Of The Church Of Uganda, Muhabura Diocese (Civil Appeal 11 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 466 · 2026 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court judgment dismissing land trespass claim
Decision
Appeal substantially dismissed; lower court judgment upholding respondent's ownership affirmed; claim for compensation for destroyed crops remitted to lower court for determination

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

Appeal substantially dismissed. Appellant's claim to customary ownership of land within Kisoro Town Council was illegal under Section 24 of the Public Lands Act 1969, which prohibited customary tenure in urban areas. Respondent's registered freehold title dating from 1938 was conclusive evidence of ownership under Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act. Locus in quo proceedings were properly conducted and survey findings confirmed the disputed land fell entirely within the respondent's titled boundaries. Matter remitted to lower court only for determination of appellant's claim for compensation for crops allegedly destroyed by respondent.

Outcome

Appeal substantially dismissed; lower court judgment upholding respondent's ownership affirmed; claim for compensation for destroyed crops remitted to lower court for determination

Facts

Appellant claimed customary ownership of land in Kisoro Town Council based on a 1986 gift from his mother, alleging respondent trespassed on approximately 70 meters by 2 meters of his land. Respondent held registered freehold title (FRV Volume 54, Folio 1) dating from a 1938 Crown Land grant comprising 80.60 acres, registered in 1939. Appellant's claimed boundary was the Kisoro-Chahi road, constructed in 1993, seven years after he allegedly acquired the land. Lower court ordered joint boundary opening by government surveyor. Locus in quo proceedings with survey equipment and cadastral map confirmed the disputed land fell entirely within respondent's titled boundaries. Appellant's home was outside the boundary. No visible customary boundary marks were found. Respondent had erected concrete pillars on the land and was in possession and cultivation. Lower court dismissed appellant's claim, finding he failed to prove customary ownership with certainty and that customary tenure was prohibited in urban areas under Section 24 of the Public Lands Act 1969.

Issues

  1. Whether the locus in quo proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and whether any defects caused a miscarriage of justice.
  2. Whether the learned Magistrate erred in relying on extraneous matters instead of actual evidence adduced at trial.
  3. Whether the appellant proved customary ownership of the suit land or qualified as a bona fide or lawful occupant.
  4. Whether the respondent trespassed on the appellant's land.
  5. Whether the appellant's claim to customary tenure in an urban area was prohibited by Section 24 of the Public Lands Act 1969.
  6. Whether the respondent's registered title under Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act was conclusive evidence of ownership.

Orders

  • Grounds 1, 2, and 4 of the appeal dismissed entirely.
  • Grounds 3, 5, and 6 succeed only partially in relation to the undeveloped claim of damaged crops.
  • Findings on the illegality of customary ownership of the suit land by the lower court upheld.
  • Appeal substantially fails.
  • Residual claim of ownership of crops allegedly destroyed by the respondent remanded to the lower court under Section 80(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act for trial and resolution.
  • 5/6 of the taxed costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.
  • Award of conditional costs in the lower court set aside and substituted with an award of 5/6 of the taxed costs in the lower court to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Customary Tenure — Prohibition in Urban Areas — Public Lands Act 1969 s.24
Customary tenure in urban areas is prohibited by Section 24 of the Public Lands Act 1969, which permits customary occupation only of unalienated public land in non-urban areas. A claim to customary ownership of land within an urban area is illegal and cannot be sustained by a court.
Land & Property — Gift of Land — Certainty of Subject Matter — Requirement for Ascertainable Boundaries
When a gift of land is made, its boundaries must be ascertained or ascertainable. Where a claimant alleges land was gifted but cannot prove with certainty the extent and boundaries of the land, including by reference to a boundary road that did not exist at the time of the alleged gift, the claim fails for lack of certainty of subject matter.
Land & Property — Registered Title — Indefeasibility — Registration of Titles Act s.59
A certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership of land under Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act. A registered freehold title dating from 1938 defeats a claim to customary ownership allegedly arising in 1986, particularly where the customary claim is illegal under the Public Lands Act 1969.
Land & Property — Customary Ownership Distinguished from Bona Fide Occupancy — Legal Status and Rights
Customary tenure is a form of ownership and a registrable interest in land. Bona fide occupancy does not confer any ownership interest in land but protects security of occupancy in accordance with the law. A claimant cannot sustain inconsistent claims of customary ownership and bona fide occupancy simultaneously. A bona fide occupant cannot assert a claim of ownership.
Tort Law — Trespass to Land — Essential Elements — Proof of Ownership
To sustain a claim of trespass to land, the plaintiff must prove that the land belongs to him and that the defendant has no lawful interest. Where the plaintiff's claim to ownership is illegal and void ab initio, he cannot maintain an action for trespass.
Civil Procedure — Locus in Quo — Conduct and Purpose — Practice Direction No. 1 of 2007
The purpose of locus in quo proceedings is to verify and test witness testimony against what is physically on the suit land, to better appreciate the evidence, check the accuracy of witness testimony, and resolve contradictions regarding physical features. Practice Direction No. 1 of 2007 requires the court to ensure all parties, witnesses, and advocates are present; allow parties and witnesses to adduce evidence; allow cross-examination; record all proceedings; and record observations, views, opinions, or conclusions including drawing a sketch plan if necessary.
Constitutional Law — Right to Property — Article 26 — Protection of Crops as Property
The right to property under Article 26(1) of the Constitution is broad and non-discriminatory. Property includes crops cultivated on land. Where a person cultivating crops on registered land is deprived of those crops, the right to property is engaged and the person may be entitled to just and fair compensation, even where the person has no ownership interest in the land itself.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (9)

  • Henry Kifamunte v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Acayo and others v Lodik (Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2017)
  • Bongole Geoffrey and others v Agnes Nakiwala (Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2015)
  • Yeseri Waibi v Edisa Lusi Byandala [1982] HCB 28
  • Musasizi Cruish and another v Nagitta Fedelesi (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2024)
  • Opiya Alensio v Okwera Wilfred (Civil Appeal No. 018 of 2018)
  • National Social Security Fund & another v Alcon International Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009)
  • Bijego Posiano and another v Tumwesigye Michael (Civil Appeal No. 030 of 2020)
  • Sheikh Mohammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1987)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sendegeya Sam v Registered Trustees Of The Province Of The Church Of Uganda, Muhabura Diocese (Civil Appeal 11 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 466 (6 May 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.