Court Dismisses Appeal, Reaffirms that in land disputes, proof of ownership is essential in trespass claims, and competing claims based on inheritance must be supported by letters of administration.

Introduction

Land disputes remain some of the most litigated matters in Uganda, often complicated by competing claims of inheritance and sale.

In this recent appeal, the High Court clarified two key points of law:

(i) the importance of the record of proceedings in appellate practice, and

(ii) the necessity of proving ownership, supported by documentary evidence or a grant of letters of administration, in trespass claims.

Facts

The respondent, Tumwesigye Michael, initiated a suit in the Chief Magistrates' Court of Kabale, claiming ownership of two parcels of land in Murole Cell, Nyakabungo Parish, Ikumba Sub-County, Rubanda District. 

The respondent alleged that he purchased the first parcel in 2000 for UGX 700,000 and the second in 2006 for UGX 5,500,000 from Juliana Kakibare, the appellants’ stepmother. He took immediate possession, cultivating crops on the first parcel and excavating stones for sale on the second.

Following Juliana Kakibare’s death, the appellants allegedly began trespassing on the land. The first appellant (Bijego Posiano) and the second defendant in the original suit were accused of cutting and destroying crops, while the second appellant (Turyamubona Abureriano) was accused of removing boundary stones and encroaching on approximately half an acre of the respondent’s land. 

The appellants claimed the land formed part of their late father’s or grandfather’s estate, distributed to them.

At trial, the respondent presented evidence, including sale agreements written by Godfrey Oyesigire (PW3) and corroborated by testimony from PW1 (the respondent) and PW2 (Turyatemba Tarasisiyo). 

The trial magistrate, His Worship Rukundo Isaac, found that the respondent had validly purchased the land and that the appellants were trespassers. 

The trial court rejected the appellants’ evidence, particularly a distribution agreement, due to inconsistencies (e.g., the name “Rukanyangira” on the document did not match Bijego Posiano) and contradictions in their testimony about the land’s origin (whether from their father or grandfather). 

The trial court granted the respondent:

1. A declaration that the appellants were trespassers.

2. General damages of UGX 3,000,000.

3. An eviction order.

4. Costs of the suit.

The appellants were granted leave to appeal out of time on April 10, 2025, by Hon. Justice Emokor and filed this appeal..

Grounds of Appeal

The Appellants advanced one ground:

The learned Trial Magistrate erred in law and fact when he failed to evaluate the evidence and as a result made the wrong finding that the 1st and 2nd appellants (formerly 2nd and 3rd defendants) were trespassers on the suit land, thereby causing a miscarriage of justice.

Representation

1. Appellants: Represented by M/S Elgon Co Advocates.

2. Respondent: Represented by M/S Bikangiso & Co Advocates.

Arguments

• Appellants’ Submissions: 

  They conceded trespass but argued that the trial court should have limited itself to the issue of trespass, not ownership. They further contended that trespass attracts only nominal damages.

  
  

• Respondent’s Submissions: 

  He supported the trial magistrate’s findings, relying on valid sale agreements and corroborative testimony, and urged the Court to uphold the award of general damages given the destruction of crops and removal of boundary stones.

Court’s Findings

1. On the Record of Proceedings: 

   The Court reiterated that an appeal must be based on the record of proceedings. Departures are permissible only in cases of illegality or where procedural defects at trial caused a miscarriage of justice.

   
   

   Here, the appellants’ counsel conceded that trespass occurred but argued that the trial court should have awarded only nominal damages, as the claim was solely for trespass and not ownership. This argument contradicted the framed ground of appeal, which challenged the trial court’s finding of trespass.

   
   

   The court rejected this approach, noting that conceding trespass undermined the appellants’ challenge to the trial court’s finding that they were trespassers. The court emphasized that an appeal must align with the grounds in the memorandum of appeal and be substantiated by the record of proceedings

   
   

2. On Trespass and Ownership: 

   Referring to Sheikh Mohammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises (CA No. 4 of 1987), the Court emphasized the essential elements of trespass, including proof that the land belongs to the plaintiff and that the defendant has no lawful interest. The Appellants’ inconsistent claims (whether land belonged to their father’s or grandfather’s estate) undermined their case.

   
   

3. Grant of Letters of Administration: 

   Following Kemitare v Kanyaruju [2025] UGHC 316, the Court stressed that no claim over estate property can succeed without a grant of letters of administration under section 187 of the Succession Act, Cap 268. The Appellants’ reliance on a “distribution agreement” failed on this point of law.

   
   

4. On Damages: 

   The Court rejected the argument for nominal damages, holding that trespass accompanied by destruction of crops and removal of boundary markers violated the Respondent’s constitutional right to property (Article 26) and entitled him to effective redress under Article 50.

   
   

Holding and Orders

1. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

2. Costs were awarded to the Respondent.

   
   

Legal Principles Clarified

1. Appellate Practice: 

   Appeals must be grounded in the record of proceedings. Departure is permissible only where illegality or miscarriage of justice is demonstrated.

2. Land Disputes: 

   Proof of ownership is essential in trespass claims. Competing claims based on inheritance must be supported by letters of administration.

3. Trespass Remedies: 

   Trespass causing actual damage warrants compensatory, not nominal, damages.

4. Constitutional Protection: 

   Article 26 protects property rights, while Article 50 provides for redress, including compensation, where those rights are infringed.

   
   

✅ Key Takeaway:

This case reaffirms that parties challenging land occupation must first prove ownership through valid documents or letters of administration, and that courts will award compensatory remedies for trespass where property rights are infringed.

Read the full case below

bijego posiano vs tumwesigye micheal.pdf

Download PDF • 2.80MB