Wakigiri v Mukomazi and Another (Civil Suit No. 33 of 2020)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim to ownership of a customary tenancy (Kibanja), holding that the first defendant lawfully acquired title through inheritance, purchase, and registration under the Land Act. The plaintiff's claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act and unsupported by evidence of customary succession. The court found no fraud in the title acquisition and held that the plaintiff's forceful entry and destruction of property constituted trespass, awarding special and general damages totaling UGX 170,000,000 to the defendants/counter-claimants.

Outcome

Plaintiff's suit dismissed; 1st Defendant declared lawful owner; permanent injunction issued against plaintiff; damages and costs awarded to defendants/counter-claimants

Facts

The plaintiff claimed beneficial ownership of a Kibanja (customary tenancy) at Nyendo-Misaali, Masaka District, asserting he inherited it from his late father Andrea Bazambalidde, who died in 1988 when the plaintiff was eight years old. The plaintiff alleged that clan elders appointed four caretakers, including the first defendant, to manage the estate until he reached majority in 2000. Upon attaining majority, the plaintiff claimed the first defendant refused to relinquish the land. In 2013, the plaintiff entered the land to harvest trees and was arrested. The first defendant held a certificate of title registered in 2007, claiming he inherited his interest from his great-grandfather Wakigiri Yakobo through his grandfather and father, and purchased additional portions in 1976 and 1983. The first defendant converted his customary tenancy into registrable title by purchasing the reversionary interest from the administrators of the mailo owner's estate between 2004 and 2010. The plaintiff entered the land again in 2017, cutting trees and demolishing the second counter-claimant's house. The court visited the locus in quo in November 2022, where the first defendant demonstrated long occupation with mature trees and a graveyard, while the plaintiff could not delineate boundaries or demonstrate possession.

Issues

1. Whether the Plaintiff is the rightful owner of the suit Kibanja incorporated in Block 323 Plot 454 Masaka?
2. Whether the 1st Defendant fraudulently acquired the Certificate of Title for the suit land?
3. Whether the 2nd Defendant unlawfully issued a Certificate of Title for Block 323 Plot 454 Buddu to the 1st Defendant?
4. Whether the 1st and 2nd Counter-Claimants are trespassers on the suit Kibanja?
5. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

• The Plaintiff's suit is dismissed.
• It is declared that the Plaintiff has no interest in the suit land.
• The 1st Defendant/Counter-Claimant is declared the lawful owner of the suit land (FRV MSK 175 Folio 19, Block 575 Plots 207 and 208, Masaka District).
• The Plaintiff's actions of forceful entry and destruction constituted trespass.
• The 1st Counter-Claimant is awarded special damages of UGX 50,000,000 for destroyed trees and property.
• The 2nd Counter-Claimant is awarded special damages of UGX 80,000,000 for his demolished house and property.
• The Counter-Claimants are awarded special damages of UGX 20,000,000 for destroyed indigenous trees and the Lukoni fence.
• General damages of UGX 20,000,000 are awarded to the Counter-Claimants for trespass and inconveniences.
• A permanent injunction is issued restraining the Plaintiff or anyone claiming under him from trespassing, excavating, cutting trees, or interfering with the suit land.
• Interest on special and general damages at 12% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
• Costs of the suit and Counter-Claim are awarded to the Defendants/Counter-Claimants.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (13)

• Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.101
• Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.102
• Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.103
• Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.46
• Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.56(3)
• Succession Act Cap. 268 s.187
• Limitation Act Cap. 290 s.5
• Limitation Act Cap. 290 s.11(1)
• Registration of Titles Act Cap. 240 s.64
• Registration of Titles Act Cap. 240 s.134(2)
• Land Act Cap. 236 s.33
• Land Act Cap. 236 s.35
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 13

Cases cited (14)

• Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
• Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Domanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
• Asha Ali Suleman v Nassanga Aysha Salma (Civil Suit No. 338 of 2015)
• Iga v Makerere University [1972] EA 65
• Perry v Clissold [1907] AC 73
• Hope Rwaguma v Livingstone Jingo Mukasa (High Court Civil Suit No. 508 of 2012)
• Jackson Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
• Katarikawe v Katwiremu [1977] HCB 187
• Christine Hope Kanyima v Mercantile Credit Bank (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0085 of 2021)
• Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga [1982] HCB 15
• Justine Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Eng. (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
• Francoise Mukyo v Rebecca Mawanda (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2008)
• Kyambadde v Mpigi District Administration [1984] HCB
• Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Komuhenda and 9 Others v Mugisa and Anor (Consolidated Civil Suit 33 of 2020; Consolidated Civil Suit 65 of 2021)
• Ssemakula v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2022)

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