Wakunga Charles v Ovoya Charles (Civil Appeal No. 288 of 2017)

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

On a second appeal in an unregistered land dispute, the Court of Appeal held that it is confined to points of law and cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact supported by evidence. The contradictions in the respondent's evidence (graves located on adjoining rather than the suit land) were minor discrepancies that did not shake the basic version of his case and were rightly disregarded, the first appellate Judge having properly re-evaluated the evidence as a whole. The ground alleging failure to re-evaluate evidence was struck out for offending Rule 86(1) by failing to specify, concisely and under distinct heads, the points wrongly decided and the order sought. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the High Court decision declaring the respondent the rightful owner of the suit land upheld

Facts

The respondent sued the appellant in the Grade I Magistrate's Court at Paidha for recovery of unregistered land at Okeyo Village, Nebbi Town Council, an order of vacant possession, a permanent injunction, general damages for trespass and costs. The respondent claimed he acquired the land as a gift inter vivos from his late father, planted sisal and eucalyptus, and allowed PW3 Akenda to build on part of it; on returning in 2009 he found the appellant had deposited construction materials. The appellant admitted possession but said he had purchased the land from the respondent's cousin, Ocaya Zeberiyo, in 2009 for shs 4,000,000. The magistrate found for the appellant. On the respondent's first appeal, the High Court at Arua (Mubiru J) reversed and declared the respondent the rightful owner, treating the graves located on adjoining land as a minor discrepancy and relying on the sisal boundary and evidence of long possession. The appellant brought this second appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the first appellate Judge erred in law by disregarding alleged grave contradictions and inconsistencies in the respondent's evidence regarding the location of graves, the neighbours and the sisal, and thereby wrongly concluding that the respondent was the rightful owner of the suit land.
2. Whether the first appellate Judge failed in his duty to re-evaluate the evidence as a whole as a first appellate court, and whether ground three was framed in compliance with Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Orders

• Ground 2 of the appeal fails.
• Ground 3 of the appeal is struck out.
• The appeal is dismissed.
• The decision and orders of the lower court are upheld.
• The appellant to bear the costs of this appeal and of the courts below.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Civil Procedure Act, Cap 282 s.72
• Civil Procedure Act, Cap 282 s.74
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10 Rule 32(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10 Rule 86(1)
• Evidence Act s.114
• Supreme Court Rules Rule 82(1)

Cases cited (9)

• Hamida Settenda Mukisa v Mwamini Twemante Sekibala (Civil Appeal No. 153 of 2017)
• Tifu Lukwago v Samwiri Mudde Kizza and J. Austine Wabitaka (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1996)
• James Sowoabiri and another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1990)
• Ranchobhai Shivabhai Patel Ltd & Another v Henry Wambuga & Another (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2017)
• Uganda National Roads Authority v Dott Services Limited & Professional Engineering Consultants Limited (Civil Appeal No. 0234 of 2021)
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Sarapio Tinkamalirwe v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1989)
• Uganda Posts & Telecommunications v Abraham Kitumba & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1995)
• Celtel Uganda Limited T/A Zain Uganda v Susan Karungi (Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2013)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Okwonga David and Others v Akena Julius and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2025)

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