Settenda v Mwamini Twemanye Sekibala (Civil Appeal No. 153 of 2017)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against a High Court finding that the appellant trespassed on her sister's land. Ground 1 was struck out for failing to specify the points wrongly decided under rule 86(1). On the locus in quo, the court held the trial judge complied with Practice Direction No. 1 of 2007 and Order 18 rule 5 CPR by recording evidence in writing and drawing a sketch plan, even where recorded in the third person. On hearsay, witnesses who stated what the deceased donor and mother told them, corroborated by direct evidence, was properly admitted. The trespass finding was upheld. Each party to bear own costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; trial judge's orders (permanent injunction and UGX 8,000,000 damages against the appellant) affirmed

Facts

The parties are sisters disputing land at Lukuli Makindye, Kampala. The appellant sued the respondent for trespass, claiming she owned the disputed portion, part given by their late father and part given by the estate trustees as compensation for land under electric power lines. The respondent counterclaimed that the appellant was the trespasser, asserting the father had donated the disputed portion to her during his lifetime, where she made bricks and ran a charcoal and welding business. Their father died intestate; a family-appointed heir and guardians distributed the estate, confirming the father's gift to the respondent. After the mother's death in 2007, the appellant constructed a six-storey building and encroached about three feet onto the respondent's land. The trial judge found for the respondent, issued a permanent injunction and awarded UGX 8,000,000 damages with interest, but no costs, to promote reconciliation. The appellant appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the trial judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence on record.
2. Whether the trial judge conducted the visit to the locus in quo in accordance with proper procedure.
3. Whether the trial judge erred in relying on evidence said to contain inconsistencies, contradictions and hearsay.
4. Whether the trial judge erred in holding that the appellant was a trespasser on the respondent's land.

Orders

• The appellant's appeal stands dismissed.
• The orders issued by the trial judge are affirmed.
• Each party shall bear her own costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 18 rule 5
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 18 rule 6
• Evidence Act s.59
• Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)
• Court of Appeal Rules (SI 13-10) rule 30(1)
• Court of Appeal Rules (SI 13-10) rule 86(1)
• Practice Direction No. 1 of 2007 (Legal Notice No. 11 of 2007) clause 3

Cases cited (5)

• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Deo Matsanga v. Uganda [1998] I KALR 57
• Haji Musa Sebirumbi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1981)
• Matsiko Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 1999)
• Mukasa Vs Uganda [1964] EA 698 at 700

Cases citing this judgment (4)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Tibyambwenu Gerevazio v Byarugaba Julius (Civil Appeal 16 of 2024)
• Epuku v Ekemu (Civil Appeal 59 of 2021)
• Malinga Patrick v Otim Emou Alfred, Ojoo Naptali Ismail & Esunget Stephen (Civil Appeal 21 of 2023)
• Malinga v Otim and 2 Others (Civil Appeal 21 of 2023)

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