Wakilii

Tushemeire Mary and Another v The Registered Trustees of the Diocese of Kigezi and Another (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2021)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 731 · 2025 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court dismissal of land ownership claim
Decision
Appeal allowed; Appellants declared to have equitable interest in 0.45 acres; compensation ordered at prevailing market price; costs awarded to Appellants

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, holding that while the 1st Respondent held registered title under Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act, the Appellants had established an equitable interest in the suit land through adverse possession from 1974 to 2012. The court recognised that land can have both legal and equitable interests, and that the trial magistrate erred by restricting analysis to registered title alone without considering the Appellants' unregistered overriding interest. The court declared the Appellants' equitable interest in 0.45 acres and ordered compensation at prevailing market price rather than restoration of possession given the 13-year passage of time.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; Appellants declared to have equitable interest in 0.45 acres; compensation ordered at prevailing market price; costs awarded to Appellants

Facts

The Appellants sued claiming ownership of land they inherited from their late mother who purchased it in 1974. They alleged that in February 2010 and August 2012, agents of the 1st Respondent (Bishop Barham University employees) used a tractor to level the suit property, destroying crops and trees planted by the Appellants. The 1st Respondent held a certificate of title to the land and denied the Appellants' claims, asserting ownership and denying permission for any cultivation. The Appellants testified they had been in continuous possession since 1974, planting trees and cultivating the land. A surveyor's report admitted as evidence showed an encroachment of 0.45 acres. The trial Chief Magistrate dismissed the claim based solely on the 1st Respondent's registered title under Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Chief Magistrate erred in holding that the 1st Respondent was the owner of the suit land based solely on the certificate of title without analysing the whole evidence on record.
  2. Whether the trial Chief Magistrate erred in strictly applying Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act without analysing the basis of the Appellants' claim and evidence on record.
  3. Whether the trial Chief Magistrate erred in interpreting Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act without taking into account that one can have equitable interest in registered land.
  4. Whether the trial Chief Magistrate failed to properly and exhaustively evaluate the evidence on record.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed on all grounds.
  • Declaration that the Appellants have an equitable interest measuring 0.45 acres (0.182 Hectares) in the suit property comprised in Block 18 Plot 307 Northern Division Kabale Municipality Kabale District.
  • The 1st Respondent shall pay compensation to the Appellants for their equitable interest in the suit property at the prevailing market price.
  • Costs of the appeal and the lower court awarded to the Appellants to be borne by the 1st Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Registered Title — Overriding Interests — Equitable Interests in Registered Land
A certificate of title under Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act confers legal ownership, but land can have both legal and equitable interests, and a court must consider evidence of unregistered overriding interests such as adverse possession when determining competing claims to land.
Land & Property — Adverse Possession — Requirements — Continuous Possession
Under Section 78 of the Registration of Titles Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and Section 29(2)(a) of the Land Act, a person who occupies and utilises land unchallenged by the registered owner for twelve years or more acquires rights as a bonafide occupant and may establish title through adverse possession.
Land & Property — Overriding Interests — Curtain Principle — Section 64(2) Registration of Titles Act
The curtain principle under Section 64(2) of the Registration of Titles Act provides that a purchaser of registered land may acquire it subject to unregistered rights including rights of occupation, easements, and rights subsisting under adverse possession existing before or after registration.
Land & Property — Remedies — Compensation for Equitable Interest — Passage of Time
Where a party establishes an equitable interest in land through adverse possession but has been dispossessed for a substantial period (13 years), a court may order compensation at prevailing market value rather than restoration of possession where such order is in the interest of all parties.
Civil Procedure — Framing of Issues — Narrow Framing — Effect on Determination
Issues framed in a narrow manner that do not allow the court to make findings on all material propositions raised in the pleadings may result in an incomplete analysis and erroneous determination, particularly where a party claims unregistered interests in land.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Preliminary Objections — Failure to Extract Decree
It is no longer good law to dismiss an appeal on the basis that a party failed to extract and file a decree along with the memorandum of appeal, provided the decree is subsequently extracted and placed on record.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (9)

  • Automobile Spares Ltd v Crane Bank & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2001)
  • Peter v Sunday Post Ltd (1958) EA 429
  • Mbabazi Stella v Monday (High Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2016)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1998)
  • Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd v Grand Hotel (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1999)
  • Moya Drift Farm Ltd v Thevri (1973) EA 114
  • Teddy Aflot v Okwanga Bright (High Court Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2019)
  • Jundu v Kirpal and another [1975] EA 225
  • Bejoy Chundra v Kally Posonno [1878] 4 Cal. 327

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tushemeire Mary and Another v The Registered Trustees of the Diocese of Kigezi and Another (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2021) [2025] UGHC 731 (14 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.