Lawpoint Uganda

The Court found that the government had complied with the procedural requirements of the Land Acquisition Act. Unlike cases where the government ignores compensation entirely, here an award was made. A landowner cannot halt a public project simply by refusing a valuation award if a legal remedy for that valuation exists.

The Court noted that once a condominium plan is registered, the "mother title" is legally dissolved. "Until termination of the condominium arrangement... it is not possible to deal in the building or the land on which it is established, as a single parcel... the building as a whole does not exist as a single saleable legal interest." The Judge found that the Plaintiffs (Shumuk) could not have purchased the "entire building" because Katatumba no longer owned the units he had a

The Court stated that the appellant erased section 110 defence of the evidence by introducing a new cause of action by asserting a marriage gift. court further observed that permissive occupation (licence) negates the animus possidendi essential for adverse possession. a licence by law does not confer title. court sought that the process to dispose of the suit was to open an administration cause. Ground 1 failed and ground 2 was upheld. the appeal partially succeeded

The Court observed that Local Council officials do not enjoy immunity when they act outside the scope of the Local Councils Courts Act. Distributing land without a court order is a "wrongful act" that attracts personal liability. Moreover, A "cause of action" is determined at the pleading stage by looking at the facts alleged. Whether those facts are actually proved is a matter for the trial, not a ground to strike out a plaint at the start.

The Court reaffirmed the legal nature of a kibanja, quoting Owembabazi Enid v GT Bank Ltd: “A kibanja is a form of land holding… characterised by user rights and ownership of developments on land in perpetuity…” Applying sections 101–103 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that the respondent discharged her burden by proving purchase, payment, possession, and boundary demarcation.

The Court observed that the issuance of a lease by government authorities does not automatically extinguish pre-existing customary ownership rights, particularly where proper procedures were not followed in the lease application process.

The Court held that the land was permanently gifted inter vivos to the appellant's uncle in 1965, evidenced by over 50 years of exclusive possession and use by the donee, his widow, and the appellant. The respondent failed to prove temporary donation or reversion.

If the injunction were granted, the Respondent would lose access to a property she has managed for years, along with the benefit of her substantial personal involvement and the protective value of the asset securing the joint loan, exposing her to loss that may not be easily reversed.

Spousal consent under the Land Act only applies to land that meets the statutory definition of "family land"—i.e., land where the family ordinarily resides or derives sustenance at the time of the transaction. Developing property (at slab level) may not qualify.

The court found that the vendors sold their beneficial interest in the estate land. “The thrust of that provision [S. 188 of the Succession Act] is that actions made in the course of administration relate back to the time of death of the deceased. The effect is that the grant of letters of administration validates legitimate actions of the administrator(s) taken prior to the grant in respect of the estate of an intestate. Specifically, actions which would ordinarily amount to

Letters of administration remain valid for two years, However, any suit instituted during their valid life remains valid throughout, including on appeal. Expiry does not extinguish locus standi for proceedings already commenced.

Actions for redemption of mortgaged land must be commenced within twelve (12) years from the date the cause of action accrues. The Court further clarified that limitation extinguishes not only the remedy but the right itself in actions for recovery or redemption of land.

The Court relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Nalongo Burashe v Kekitiibwa Magdalena, Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2011, which held that LC II Courts (Parish/Ward Executive Committee Courts) have original jurisdiction in land matters. The Judge found that the Court of Appeal decision overrides earlier conflicting High Court decisions. Therefore, LC II Courts do retain original jurisdiction in land matters.

The Court found that ULC had absolutely no power to rescind a lease once it had been registered under the RTA. “Once the respondent issues a lease and the lease is registered on the title, the respondent does not have the powers to rescind or cancel that lease.”...“There are procedures by which land under the RTA may be de-registered… Failure to comply renders the decision a nullity.”

The Court examined Article 239 of the Constitution (ULC functions) Section 51(3) of the Land Act (only the Secretary conducts ULC correspondence) Minute 20-2 of 31st March 2015 The minute clearly indicated the application was deferred, not approved. The letters (PE3 and PE7) from the ULC Chairperson were held invalid because they violated s.51(3) of the Land Act: “I find that the communication through the two letters by the Chairperson of the Commission, PE3 and PE7, were i

The Court found that the trial judge erred when he concluded that the Respondent was a bona fide occupant within the meaning of the land law framework. The Court emphasized that bona fide occupancy is strictly defined by statute, including the cut-off dates for occupation. This observation confirms that occupation commencing in 1993 falls outside the statutory protections accorded to bona fide occupants. The Court therefore held that the trial judge misapplied the law by exte

A local government claiming pre-independence customary grant (1915) must produce credible evidence of (a) actual alienation by the colonial authorities or recognised customary grant and (b) continuous utilisation. Mere oral tradition and long use by parish chiefs was held insufficient when contradicted by documentary evidence of private inheritance.

The court found that the contradictory locations of signing (Rakai, Rwanda, Kisoro) undermined credibility. The appellant’s own witnesses conceded that the land was family land already sold earlier to the respondent. The court held that no beneficiary of the late Bahenga Yesaya could pass title without letters of administration. “Any right to the intestate’s property can only be established when letters of administration are granted by court.” — Buzandora Charles v Ndiroheye

“For one to claim an interest in land, he or she must show that he or she acquired an interest or title from someone who previously had an interest or title thereon.”

“The interpretation of contracts is essential in ensuring that parties understand the rights and obligations outlined within the agreement. When disputes arise, the court’s primary objective is to ascertain the intention of the parties based on the language used in the contract.”

"Once authenticity of a document is challenged, the evidential burden shifts to the party asserting its validity (Section 101, Evidence Act). The Defendant, having raised novation, bore this burden but did not discharge it. The document was never properly tendered or admitted as an exhibit. It therefore carries no probative value (Des Raj Sharma v Reginam [1953] 19 EACA 310; Kibalama v Sajjabi [1988–90] HCB 84)."

The Court clarified that undeveloped or unoccupied land rarely qualifies as family land under Section 39(4) of the Land Act, Cap. 236, which defines family land as property (a) on which the family ordinarily resides, (b) from which the family derives sustenance, or (c) which the family voluntarily agrees to treat as such. The evidence before the Court showed that “the land was bush and undeveloped, without residence or cultivation.” Accordingly, Justice Bareebe held that vaca

The Court referred to Practice Direction No. 1 of 2007, emphasizing that: “During the hearing of land disputes, the court should ensure that parties and their witnesses are present at the locus, evidence is adduced, and proceedings are recorded.” Justice Echakokit found no procedural irregularity that prejudiced the Appellant, holding that the Chief Magistrate’s approach substantially complied with the requirements.

The court clarified that the suit land is not ancestral but part of Adonia’s estate, emphasizing the importance of proper estate distribution and title transfer. The court clarified that Buganda customs of heirship do not confer exclusive ownership emphasizes the primacy of legal title and estate administration in determining property rights.