Wakilii

Settuba v Sserunkuma (Civil Appeal 21 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 285 · 2025 Appeal Allowed — Remitted for Retrial AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court judgment dismissing land ownership claim
Decision
Matter remitted to Chief Magistrate's Court of Kiboga for retrial

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 allowed the appeal on the ground that the trial magistrate failed to record locus in quo proceedings as required by the Chief Justice's Practice Direction No. 1 of 2007. The trial magistrate relied on observations made at the locus visit that were not contained in any recorded proceedings, including findings about residency and burial sites. This irregularity occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The matter was remitted to the Chief Magistrate's Court for retrial.

Outcome

Matter remitted to Chief Magistrate's Court of Kiboga for retrial

Facts

The appellant claimed ownership of five acres of land (kibanja) which he alleged formed part of his late mother Maria Nasejje's estate, purchased from the respondent's grandfather George William Kagulire in 1950. The respondent, registered owner of 45 acres of mailo land, denied the claim and stated that the appellant's mother never purchased any land from his grandfather. The trial magistrate dismissed the suit, finding the appellant's claim baseless. The trial court conducted a locus visit on 7 June 2023, but no proceedings of that visit were recorded. The trial magistrate's judgment relied on observations made at the locus, including that the appellant was not resident on the suit land and that Maria Nasejje was the only person buried there.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate properly conducted the locus in quo visit in accordance with established principles.
  2. Whether the trial magistrate's reliance on unrecorded locus findings occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Matter remitted to the Chief Magistrate's Court of Kiboga for retrial.
  • Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal and the lower court.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Locus in Quo — Recording of Proceedings — Mandatory Requirements
Where a trial court conducts a locus in quo visit, it must record all proceedings at the locus including evidence adduced, cross-examination, observations, views, opinions, conclusions, and sketch plans as required by the Chief Justice's Practice Direction No. 1 of 2007 Guideline 3.
Civil Procedure — Locus in Quo — Reliance on Unrecorded Findings — Miscarriage of Justice
Where a judicial officer bases his or her decision on features seen at the locus in quo, any irregularities in the locus proceedings lead to a miscarriage of justice, particularly where the appellate court cannot verify the facts relied upon because they were not recorded.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — First Appellate Court — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
The duty of a first appellate court is to scrutinize and re-evaluate the evidence on record and come to its own conclusion, making allowance for the fact that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses, and considering the evidence on any issue in its totality and not any piece in isolation.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (7)

  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd (CACA No. 4 of 2006)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (SC Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Baguma Fred v Uganda (SC Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2004)
  • The Registered Trustees of the Archdiocese of Tororo v Wesonga Reuben Malaba & others (HCCA No. 96 of 2009)
  • Olum Peter v Modikayo Obina (HCCA No. 42 of 2013)
  • Alule Richard v Agwe Domnic (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2014)
  • Oyua Enock v Okot William and 9 Others (HCCA No. 22 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Settuba v Sserunkuma (Civil Appeal 21 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 285 (12 May 2025)
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.