Wakilii

Sentayi v Mukasa (Civil Appeal 21 of 2017)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 335 · 2023 Matter Remitted for Locus Proceedings AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's judgment, arising from a retrial ordered by the High Court
Decision
Matter remitted for locus in quo proceedings to be conducted by the Registrar before final judgment

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 held that the trial magistrate erred by failing to conduct locus in quo proceedings despite visiting the disputed land, merely because of the appellant's absence. The absence of a party does not justify failure to proceed with locus proceedings where ordered by the High Court and where boundary issues remained in dispute. The Registrar was directed to visit locus in quo and conduct proceedings in compliance with Practice Direction No.1 of 2007.

Outcome

Matter remitted for locus in quo proceedings to be conducted by the Registrar before final judgment

Facts

In 2004, the respondent claimed that the appellant trespassed on unregistered land at Kyakinaka village, Kibaale District, which the respondent had purchased from Kayiira Martin. The appellant denied the allegations and counterclaimed, asserting he had purchased the suit land in 1997 and had been in quiet possession since then, fencing it with poles and barbed wire. The matter was originally heard by the District Land Tribunal, then transferred to the Chief Magistrate who decided in favour of the respondent. The appellant appealed and the High Court ordered a trial de novo with a direction to visit locus in quo. At retrial, the Chief Magistrate found for the respondent but failed to conduct locus proceedings due to the appellant's absence on the scheduled day, despite visiting the site. Evidence indicated that the appellant had fenced part of the land, raising boundary issues that required verification at locus in quo.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate erred in law by failing to conduct locus in quo proceedings as directed by the High Court.
  2. Whether the omission to conduct locus in quo occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

Orders

  • The Registrar of this court is directed to visit locus in quo of the 2 suits which are located in the same area and conduct the locus proceedings in strict compliance with the procedure laid down in Practice Direction No.1 of 2007.
  • The Registrar to return the 2 files for judgment writing with locus visit report for each file within 2 weeks from the date of this decision.
  • The 2 sister appeals (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2017 and Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2017) shall be consolidated for appeal purposes.
  • The Registrar to ascertain the portion of land allegedly trespassed upon as shown by the plaintiff/Respondent, the portion fenced off by the defendant/Appellant, and record any other useful information and observations.

Rules and key headnotes

Locus in Quo — Effect of Party's Absence — Duty to Proceed
Where a court has directed that locus in quo be visited and conducted, the absence of one party does not justify the court's failure to proceed with locus proceedings, particularly where that party was present when the matter was fixed for locus visit and had notice of the date.
Locus in Quo — Compliance with Practice Direction No.1 of 2007
A locus in quo visit must comply with Practice Direction No.1 of 2007, which requires verification of evidence given in court, recording of all proceedings at the locus, and recording of any observations, views, opinions or conclusions of the court. Mere attendance at the site without conducting these procedural steps does not constitute proper locus proceedings.
Boundary Disputes — Necessity of Locus in Quo
Where evidence indicates that part of disputed land has been fenced and boundaries are uncertain, a locus in quo visit is necessary for proper determination of the matter, notwithstanding submissions that boundaries are not in dispute.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Practice Direction No.1 of 2007

Cases cited (1)

  • Fr. Narsensio Begumisa & Others v Eric Tibebaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sentayi_v_Mukasa_(Civil_Appeal_21_of_2017)_[2023]_UGHCLD_335_(4_March_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.