Wakilii

Ssebowa Maurice v Mariam Kulabako Muliisa and Birungi Madinah (Civil Suit 43 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 300 · 2025 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of kibanja and commercial building
Decision
Plaintiff's suit dismissed; first defendant declared rightful owner; permanent injunction issued restraining plaintiff from interfering with defendant's possession

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 dismissed the plaintiff's claim for recovery of a kibanja and commercial building. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership, relying on inadmissible oral evidence to prove an alleged written contract under Evidence Act s.58. The first defendant proved lawful purchase through a valid sale agreement dated 9.7.1994 and continuous physical possession through her agents. The court rejected fraud allegations, finding the forensic evidence unreliable due to investigator bias in extracting sample signatures from the questioned document itself. The first defendant was declared the rightful owner of the registered title.

Outcome

Plaintiff's suit dismissed; first defendant declared rightful owner; permanent injunction issued restraining plaintiff from interfering with defendant's possession

Facts

The plaintiff claimed he purchased a kibanja with a two-roomed commercial building in Busika Town, Luwero district on 11.7.1994 from Bashir Lubega for UGX 2,450,000. He alleged he permitted the defendants (siblings of the first defendant) to stay in the property but that the first defendant forcefully took control in 2017 and collected rent. The first defendant, who had been in a relationship with the plaintiff resulting in one child, denied his claims and asserted she purchased the same kibanja from Lubega on 9.7.1994 for UGX 2,250,000. She produced a sale agreement witnessed by local council officials and the plaintiff himself. Her sister, the second defendant, testified that the first defendant introduced her as caretaker to local authorities and she collected rent on behalf of the first defendant from 1999 when the first defendant moved to the UK. The first defendant later acquired registered title to the land in 2016.

Issues

  1. Between the plaintiff and the first defendant, who owned the kibanja interest and developments on it?
  2. Whether the first defendant fraudulently acquired and registered the suit land in her names.
  3. What remedies are available?

Orders

  • The plaintiff's suit is dismissed and judgment is entered for the defendants.
  • The first defendant Kulabako Mariam Muliisa lawfully acquired the suit kibanja on 9.7.1994 from Lubega Bashir.
  • The first defendant Kulabako Mariam Muliisa is declared the rightful owner of land comprised in Bulemezi Block 21 Plot 1392 measuring 0.040 hectares.
  • A permanent injunction shall issue restraining the plaintiff and his agents from interfering with the quiet possession of the first defendant Kulabako and from making any further claims to the said property.
  • The plaintiff shall pay the two defendants Kulabako Mariam and Birungi Madinah costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Admissibility — Oral Evidence to Prove Written Contract — Evidence Act s.58
Oral evidence is inadmissible to prove the contents of a written contract. Where a party asserts the existence of a written contract but fails to produce it, oral testimony about its terms cannot be admitted under Evidence Act s.58.
Evidence — Burden and Standard of Proof — Fraud Allegations
Where fraud is alleged in civil proceedings, the party alleging fraud bears the burden of proof on a standard higher than the ordinary balance of probabilities, requiring a degree of probability commensurate with the seriousness of the allegation.
Evidence — Expert Evidence — Forensic Reports — Sample Signatures
A forensic handwriting report is unreliable and will be discounted where the investigating officer extracts sample signatures from the questioned document itself rather than obtaining independent samples, as this amounts to concocting evidence.
Land Law — Proof of Ownership — Kibanja Interests — Physical Possession
Ownership of a kibanja interest is proved by production of a valid sale agreement and evidence of continuous physical possession. Where a party claims ownership but cannot produce the sale agreement and has never been in physical possession, the claim will fail.
Land Law — Registration of Title — Conclusiveness of Certificate — RTA s.59
Under Registration of Titles Act s.59, a certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership and cannot be impeached on account of any irregularity in the proceedings prior to registration.
Civil Procedure — Witness Statements — Failure to Testify — Expunging Statements
Where a witness statement has been filed but the witness does not appear to testify, the court has discretionary power under Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019 Order 18 Rule 5A(5) to expunge the witness statement from the record.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Evidence Act Cap.8 s.58
  • Evidence Act Cap.8 s.101
  • Evidence Act Cap.8 s.103
  • Contract Act Cap.284 s.10(2)
  • Registration of Titles Act Cap.240 s.59
  • Registration of Titles Act Cap.240 s.91(1)
  • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019 Order 18 Rule 5A(5)
  • Local Government (Resistance Councils) Statute 15 of 1993
  • Local Government Act Cap.138
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 237(1)

Cases cited (2)

  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 ALL ER 372
  • Bater v Bater [1951] 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssebowa Maurice v Mariam Kulabako Muliisa and Birungi Madinah (Civil Suit 43 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 300 (23 April 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.