Wakilii

Tegulwa Miriam and Naigaga Justine v Naigaga Rose Christine (Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2021)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 950 · 2025 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Magistrate Grade 1 judgment in land boundary dispute
Decision
Appellants declared lawful owners; respondent ordered to vacate the suit land

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, reversing the trial Magistrate's decision. The court held that the trial Magistrate wrongly evaluated the evidence and made unsupported findings. Upon conducting a fresh locus in quo, the appellate court found that the disputed land belonged to the late Kisambira Safani Ziraba, father of the appellants, not to the respondent's late father. The court declared the appellants lawful owners, granted a permanent injunction against the respondent, and ordered vacant possession. The preliminary objection regarding the deceased first appellant was overruled as the remaining administrators could continue the appeal under Order 24 r.2 CPR.

Outcome

Appellants declared lawful owners; respondent ordered to vacate the suit land

Facts

The appellants, sisters and administrators of their late father Kisambira Safani Ziraba's estate, claimed ownership of land at Busambira village, Nakigo Sub-county, Iganga District, which they inherited from their father and grandfather. The respondent, their cousin, constructed a house on a quarter-acre portion of the land in March 2016, claiming it was part of land remaining after her late father Stefano Kaliba donated land to the Church of Uganda in 1982. The respondent argued her father was buried on the disputed land in 1986, proving his ownership. The trial Magistrate conducted locus in quo and found for the respondent, reasoning that Stefano Kaliba would not have donated all prime land near the road to the church and been buried on his cousin's land. The appellants appealed, challenging the evaluation of evidence and the locus procedure.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence on record.
  2. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in finding that the suit land belonged to the Respondent without ascertaining the particulars of the suit land.
  3. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in relying on speculation as to which land the Respondent's late father donated to the church.
  4. Whether the trial Magistrate followed proper procedure in conducting locus in quo.
  5. Whether the preliminary objection regarding the death of the first Appellant was properly raised.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs in this court and the court below.
  • Appellants declared the lawful owners of the suit land.
  • Permanent injunction issued against the Respondent, her agents and employees from further trespassing on the suit land.
  • Order for vacant possession evicting the Respondent from the suit land granted.
  • Preliminary objection overruled.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Death of Party — Multiple Plaintiffs/Appellants — Effect on Proceedings
Where there are multiple plaintiffs or appellants and one dies during proceedings, and the cause of action survives to the surviving parties, the court shall cause an entry of the death to be made on the record and the suit shall proceed at the instance of the surviving parties without requiring appointment of a legal representative of the deceased.
Civil Procedure — Grounds of Appeal — Requirements for Validity
A ground of appeal must be framed concisely, under distinct heads, without argument or narrative, and must challenge a specific holding or ratio decidendi. A general and vague ground that fails to specify the points wrongly decided offends Order 43 r.1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and is liable to be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Appellate Court — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
As a first appellate court, the High Court is duty bound to re-evaluate all evidence adduced before the trial court and make its own inferences. The appellate court can interfere with the trial court's findings where there was misdirection on law or fact or an error that goes to the root of the matter and occasions a miscarriage of justice.
Evidence — Evaluation of Evidence — Speculation and Unsupported Findings
A trial court errs when it bases its findings on speculation, imagination, or personal opinion not supported by evidence on record. Findings must be grounded in the evidence adduced and not on the court's own assumptions about what a party would or would not have done.
Land & Property — Boundary Disputes — Locus in Quo — Weight of Evidence
In land boundary disputes, the appellate court may conduct a fresh locus in quo to ascertain boundaries and verify evidence. Where physical features on the ground, witness testimony, and documentary evidence consistently point to one party's ownership, the presence of a grave on disputed land does not conclusively establish ownership if the burial was by permission of the true owner.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • National Insurance Corporation v Pelican Services (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2003)
  • Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tegulwa Miriam and Naigaga Justine v Naigaga Rose Christine (Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2021) [2025] UGHC 950 (27 June 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.