Wakilii

Timbigamba Simon and Others v Ker Kwaro Palabek and Others (Civil Misc. Application No. 150 of 2021)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 576 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms under articles 50(1) and (2) and 26 of the Constitution
Decision
Application for human rights enforcement dismissed. Applicants at liberty to pursue refund of consideration paid from persons they dealt with.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 4 citing cases on record, 4 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 the applicants failed to prove they acquired property rights or interests in land within Palabek County, Lamwo District, as their arrangements constituted tenancy or hire agreements creating only contractual rights, not proprietary interests. Although the applicants had a constitutional right to move and settle freely in Lamwo District under article 29(2)(a), this right was not absolute. The court found that the applicants' cattle destroyed crops, water sources, and soil, thereby violating the host community's constitutional rights to life and livelihood (article 22(1)), property (article 26), culture and tradition (article 37), and economic rights (article 40). The limitation of the applicants' rights by the respondents' public notice ordering them out of Lamwo District was held to be proportionate, necessary, acceptable, and justifiable in a free and democratic society and in the public interest under article 43 of the Constitution. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for human rights enforcement dismissed. Applicants at liberty to pursue refund of consideration paid from persons they dealt with.

Facts

Eleven applicants, cattle keepers, entered into various land hire and purchase agreements with individuals in Palabek County, Lamwo District between 2020 and 2021. The applicants relocated cattle to the area for grazing. On 16 October 2021, leaders of Palabek County, including traditional leaders, local council chairpersons, and district officials, held a meeting and issued a public notice declaring the applicants' land transactions illegal, null and void, and ordering the applicants to vacate the area. The notice cited concerns including destruction of crops and water sources by cattle, alleged manipulation of vulnerable citizens, spread of animal diseases, security threats, marital issues, and violation of customary land tenure protocols. The applicants sought court intervention, alleging violation of their constitutional rights to property and freedom of movement. Evidence showed that cattle belonging to some applicants and their colleagues destroyed crops and water sources, for which compensation was paid in some instances. The respondents asserted that land in Palabek County is held under customary tenure requiring clan consent for transactions, which the applicants allegedly did not obtain.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants acquired any property rights or interests in land in Lamwo District and if so, whether those property rights or interests were violated by the respondents
  2. Whether the applicants had the right to settle with their cattle in Lamwo District and if so, whether that right was violated by the respondents
  3. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • The applicants have failed to prove that they acquired property rights or interest in land within Palabek County, Lamwo District. Consequently, their claims of violation of property rights/interest fail. The applicants, however, are at liberty to pursue for refund of whatever consideration they paid from the persons they dealt with, if not already remedied.
  • Although the applicants had right to settle in Lamwo District, only the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 10th, and 11th applicants were able to prove that they obtained permits to relocate their cattle to Lamwo District. The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th applicants failed to prove any form of authorization to move cattle to the District. Notwithstanding this finding, the right of all applicants and colleagues to move freely and settle in Lamwo District is not absolute. The applicants and colleagues violated the constitutional rights of the host community, to wit, the right to life and livelihood under article 22(1), the right to property under article 26, the right to enjoy and practice, profess, maintain and promote culture and tradition under article 37, and the economic right under article 40. Therefore, the limitation of the right of the applicants and colleagues by the impugned public notice by which they were ordered out of Lamwo District with their cattle, was proportionate, necessary, acceptable, and justifiable in a free and democratic society and aligns with the public interest.
  • The applicants have not proved any entitlement to damages from the respondents.
  • The applicants' claim in defamation fails the same being a common law tort but was wrongly brought within the action for human rights enforcement. The defamation claim required an action on plaint and not Notice of Motion. It ought to be properly pleaded and proved.
  • The prayer of a permanent injunction fails.
  • Having been notified to exit Lamwo District and given the extended periods for their departure, the allegation of illegal eviction has not been proved and fails.
  • The application for human rights enforcement substantially fails and is hereby dismissed.
  • Regarding costs of the action, each side shall bear its own costs but given the neglect by the applicants' counsel to file submissions, he shall not have costs from his clients. However, the respondents shall meet the costs of their own counsel.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Right to Property — Article 26 — Distinction Between Property Rights and Contractual Rights
A land hire agreement creates contractual rights in the tenant, not proprietary rights or interests in land. Where a person enters into a hire agreement for land, they acquire the rights of a tenant under contract, not title or interest in the land itself. Such contractual rights do not constitute property within the meaning of article 26 of the Constitution, and therefore a person holding only contractual rights cannot claim violation of property rights under article 26.
Land & Property — Customary Land Tenure — Acholi Sub-Region — Requirement for Clan Consent
In areas where land is held under customary tenure, particularly in Acholi sub-region, the customs, traditions and practices of the community apply to land acquisition. Where customary land is to be given out, especially in perpetuity, there is a need for involvement of the cultural institution or the community where the custom of the specific area so dictates. The clan or family has the right to settle land disputes, exercise the right to buy land offered for sale by its members, prohibit sale of clan land to undesirable persons, and declare void any land transaction which has not received its approval, subject to constitutional limitations on such powers.
Constitutional Law — Limitation of Rights — Article 43 — Balancing Competing Rights
The right to move freely and settle in any part of Uganda under article 29(2)(a) of the Constitution is not absolute. Where the exercise of that right by some persons violates the constitutional rights of others, including the right to life and livelihood (article 22(1)), the right to property (article 26), the right to enjoy and practice culture and tradition (article 37), and economic rights (article 40), the limitation of the former right is justified under article 43 of the Constitution if it is proportionate, necessary, acceptable, and justifiable in a free and democratic society and in the public interest.
Constitutional Law — Judicial Power — Articles 28(1) and 126(1) — Power to Annul Transactions
The power to declare a contractual arrangement null and void is vested in competent courts by articles 28(1) and 126(1) of the Constitution. Any customary law purporting to vest clans or families with powers to annul land transactions is inconsistent with these constitutional provisions and is null and void to the extent of that inconsistency under article 2(2) of the Constitution. However, this does not prevent clans from exercising other customary rights over land within constitutional limits.
Land & Property — Distinction Between Lease and Hire Agreement — Creation of Estate in Land
A lease within the purview of section 3(5)(a) of the Land Act creates an estate in land, whether created by contract or by operation of law. A mere hire agreement, even if for a term of years, does not create a lease or an estate in land unless it satisfies the requirements for a lease under the Land Act. The distinction is material in determining whether a person has acquired a proprietary interest in land.
Civil Procedure — Failure to File Submissions — Inherent Powers of Court — Section 98 Civil Procedure Act
Where a court directs parties to file written submissions and a party fails to comply without explanation, the court may, in an appropriate case, invoke its inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to dismiss the case to prevent injustice and abuse of process. However, such powers must be exercised with great caution and judicially, taking into account the circumstances of each case, including whether the matter can be resolved on available evidence without submissions.

Legislation cited (29)

Cases cited (49)

  • Enen Okello Richard v Lira University Council (Misc. Cause No. 23 of 2022)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Application No. 8 of 1998)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo and 3 Others v Attorney General and 4 Others (Constitutional Application No. 06 of 2013)
  • Kakooza John Baptist v Electoral Commission (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2007)
  • Charles Harry Twagira v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2007)
  • Charles Harry Twagira v Attorney General and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2007)
  • Mathias Mpuuga and Mohammad Muwanga Kivumbi v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 32 of 2012)
  • JK Patel v Spear Motors Ltd (SCCA No. 4 of 1991)
  • Sebuliba v Cooperative Bank Ltd [1982] HCB 129
  • Komakech Walter and 3 Others v Kilama Owani and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2021)
  • Attorney General and Apac District Administration v Rutama Geoffrey and Misango Abel (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2015)
  • Uganda National Roads Authority v Irumba Asuman and Peter Magellah (Constitutional Appeal No. 02 of 2014)
  • Paul K Semwogerere and 2 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
  • Attorney General v Salvatori Abuki (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Omara Daniel and 2 Others v Attorney General and Uganda National Roads Authority (Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2021)
  • Okupa Ellijah and 2020 Others v Attorney General (Misc. Cause No. 14 of 2005)
  • Gideon Emaru v Attorney General (HMC No. 071 of 2005)
  • Osotraco Limited v Attorney General (HCCS No. 00-CV-CS-1380 of 1986)
  • Attorney General v Osotraco Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2002)
  • Karugaba v Attorney-General [2003] 2 EA 489
  • Societe United Docks and Others v Government of Mauritius (1952) 1 All ER 864
  • Shah v Attorney-General [1970] EA 523
  • Galdino Okello Moro and 4 Others v Attorney General and 8 Others (Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2019)
  • Ismail Jaffer Allibhai and Others v Nandlal Harjivan and Another (SCCA No. 53 of 1995)
  • John Katarikawe v William Katwiremu and Another [1977] HCB 187
  • Semakula and Another v Setimba (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2013)
  • Gabriel Rugambwa and Another v Ezironi Bwambale and Another (HCCS No. 359 of 1997)
  • Fam International Ltd and Another v Muhammed Hamid (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1993)
  • David Sejjaka Nalima v Rebecca Musoke (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1985)
  • Arthur Busingye and Another v Gianluigi Grassi and Another (HCT-00-CC-MA-203 of 2013)
  • Susan Theophil Mbilinyi & Mrs. Susan Mbilinyi Vs. Ivanune Jeru Mbilinyi, Misc. Civil Revision No. 03 of 2023
  • National Insurance Corporation of (T) Ltd & Another Vs. Shengena Limited, Civil Application No. 20 of 2007
  • Godfrey Kimbe Vs. Peter Ngonyani, Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2014
  • Nalujja Federesi v Katibe Nkonge Paul and 2 Others (Misc. Application No. 197 of 2023)
  • John William Beyagala v Yunusu Kasumba (Misc. Application No. 622 of 2011)
  • Walugembe v Katumba (Misc. Application No. 536 of 2025)
  • Ariko v Omara and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 41 of 2022)
  • Obote David v Odora Yasoni (Misc. Application No. 50 of 2022)
  • Ayub Suleman v Salim Kabambalo (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1995)
  • National Union of Clerical Commercial Professional and Technical Employees v National Insurance Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Rawal Vs. Mombasa Hardware Ltd 1968
  • Adonia v Mutekanga (1970) EA 429
  • Mukisa Biscuits Co v West End Distributors (1969) EA 696
  • Alfred Tajar v Uganda (EACA Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1969)
  • Kampala District Land Board v Venasio Babweyaka and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2007)
  • Charles Onyango Obbo v Attorney General [2004] UGSC 1
  • Felix Onama v Uganda Argus Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1968)
  • Samuel Wako Wambuzi v Editor in Chief Red Pepper Publications Ltd and 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 305 of 2015)
  • Amodu Tijani v Secretary, Southern Provinces [1921] NGSC

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Timbigamba Simon and Others v Ker Kwaro Palabek and Others (Civil Misc. Application No. 150 of 2021) [2025] UGHC 576 (28 July 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.