Wakilii

Teddy Nabakooza and Kalemeera Amos v Dorothy Natese Samali Mukasa (Civil Appeal 22 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 1264 · 2024 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal from the Chief Magistrate's Court in a civil suit for trespass, eviction, and permanent injunction
Decision
Appellants declared trespassers and ordered to vacate the suit land with exhumation of graves; permanent injunction granted and damages awarded to respondent

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

Held that both appellants are trespassers on the respondent's registered land, Block 327 Plot 8. The first appellant's kibanja inherited from her father is located on adjacent Plot 6, not Plot 8, and she encroached onto Plot 8 only in 2008. The second appellant purchased his kibanja on adjacent Plot 7 but similarly encroached onto Plot 8. Registration under the Land Act confers indefeasible title. Neither appellant qualifies as a bona fide occupant under section 29(2) of the Land Act, and the respondent's claim is not barred by limitation. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Appellants declared trespassers and ordered to vacate the suit land with exhumation of graves; permanent injunction granted and damages awarded to respondent

Facts

The respondent, registered proprietor of Block 327 Plot 8 (8 acres) since 2009, discovered encroachment by the appellants when she opened boundaries. The first appellant claimed to have inherited a kibanja from her father who purchased three acres from the owner of adjacent Plot 6 in 1975. Evidence established that her lawful kibanja is on Plot 6, but she encroached onto Plot 8 in 2008, occupying 2.67 acres and burying relatives there. The second appellant purchased a kibanja on adjacent Plot 7 in 1998 but encroached onto Plot 8 around 2010, occupying 1.45 acres. The respondent sued in 2012. The trial magistrate found both appellants to be trespassers and ordered eviction, exhumation of graves, permanent injunction, and damages. Both appellants appealed, challenging the evaluation of evidence and the application of trespass law.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellants have any lawful interest in Block 327 Plot 8 land at Kabala East Buganda Bulemezi.
  2. Whether the appellants are trespassers on the respondent's registered land.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Judgment and orders of the trial court confirmed.
  • Appellants Teddy Nabakooza and Kaleemera Amos declared trespassers on Bulemezi Block 327 Plot 8.
  • Respondent Dorothy Natese Mukasa entitled to possession of the portions trespassed upon.
  • Vacant possession ordered: Nabakooza to vacate 2.67 acres and Kaleemera to vacate 1.45 acres within 60 days.
  • Appellants directed to exhume remains of relatives buried on suit land and relocate them within 14 days.
  • Permanent injunction issued restraining appellants from interfering with respondent's quiet enjoyment.
  • General damages of five million shillings paid into court to be released to respondent within 30 days.
  • Appellants to pay costs of appeal and of the court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Registered Title — Indefeasibility — Trespass by Customary Occupants
Where land is held under registered title, a person claiming customary tenure (kibanja) on adjacent land who encroaches onto the registered parcel is a trespasser with no lawful interest in the registered land, even if family graves are located there.
Bona Fide Occupancy — Section 29(2) Land Act — Encroachment After Registration
A person who enters registered land without the consent of the registered proprietor after the land has been registered does not qualify as a bona fide occupant under section 29(2) of the Land Act, regardless of the duration of occupation or improvements made.
Adverse Possession — Limitation — Discovery of Encroachment
The limitation period under section 5 of the Limitation Act begins to run from the date the registered proprietor discovers the encroachment and takes steps to assert title. Where a proprietor discovers trespass in 2009–2010 and sues in 2012, the action is not time-barred.
Evaluation of Evidence — Credibility — Contradictions in Testimony
Where a party's testimony contains material internal contradictions and is contradicted by independent witnesses, the court is entitled to reject that testimony and accept the opposing evidence as more credible.
First Appellate Court — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
The first appellate court has a duty to re-appraise all evidence and materials adduced in the trial court and arrive at its own conclusions on issues of fact and law, bearing in mind it did not observe the demeanour of witnesses.
Scheduling Conference — Omission to Frame Issues — Effect
The omission to record a defendant's facts at a scheduling conference or to frame issues before trial is not fatal where the trial magistrate frames issues in the judgment that capture the substance of the dispute.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Fr. Narcensio Begumisa and three others v Eric Tibegaga (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2002)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Teddy Nabakooza and Kalemeera Amos v Dorothy Natese Samali Mukasa (Civil Appeal 22 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 1264 (31 January 2024)
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.