Court of Appeal of Uganda Dismisses Government's Appeal on Procedural Grounds in High-Stakes Land Dispute Involving Refugee Settlement, Upholds Bulk of UGX 30 Billion Compensation Award.
- Waboga David
- Sep 22
- 8 min read
Facts
The dispute centred on 1,531.96 hectares of land (FRV 1561 Folio 4, Buhaguzi Block 3, Plot 110) in Katikara, Kasonga Parish, Kyangwali Sub-County, Kikuube District ("suit land").
The respondent, Festus Akunobera, inherited the land from his grandfather, who received a customary ownership certificate from the Bunyoro-Kitara Kingdom in 1934. Ownership passed to the respondent's father in 1985 and to the respondent in 2012.
Following clearances from the Bunyoro-Kitara Kingdom Land Board and Hoima District Land Board, the respondent converted the tenure to freehold and obtained a certificate of title on March 14, 2019.
The appellant (representing the Government) claimed the suit land formed part of the larger Kyangwali Refugee Settlement (14,199.42 hectares, FRV 1561 Folio 4, Buhaguzi Block 3, Plot 6), over which the Uganda Land Commission (ULC) secured a freehold title on January 29, 2016.
The Government alleged occupation since 1960 under a 49-year lease from the Omukama of Bunyoro (covering 13,000 hectares, expiring April 2009 without renewal).
In November 2018, the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) allegedly settled refugees ("Bagegere" from Congo) on the suit land without consent or compensation, leading to destruction of forests, erection of structures, and maize cultivation.
The respondent filed suit on September 24, 2020, claiming unlawful compulsory acquisition under Article 26 of the Constitution and Section 162 of the Registration of Titles Act (RTA, Cap 240).
He sought UGX 30 billion for land deprivation, UGX 18 billion for wood destruction, UGX 7 billion for lost rental income, UGX 5 billion in general damages, UGX 2 billion in punitive damages, costs, and 23% interest p.a.
The High Court (Hon. Mr. Justice Byaruhanga Jesse Ruguema, October 28, 2022) declared the respondent's title valid, the ULC's title defeasible due to overlap and lack of basis, and awarded UGX 30,067,542,200 in compensation, UGX 420,000,000 in general damages, 23% interest from judgment, and costs.
It dismissed the Government's counterclaim for title cancellation on fraud/illegality grounds.
The Attorney General appealed, filing the memorandum and record on January 18, 2024, over four months after receiving certified proceedings in August 2023, without seeking an extension of time to appeal.
Issues
Whether the appeal was competent, given non-compliance with the 60-day filing timeline under Rule 83(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Whether the respondent's cause of action was time-barred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (12-year limit for land recovery).
Whether the respondent held a valid title in light of ULC’s prior registration.
Whether the trial court erred in awarding compensation and damages (allegedly excessive).
Whether the interest awarded was excessive.
Submissions
The Respondent raised a Preliminary Objection.
The appeal was incompetent as the memorandum and record were filed over four months late (post-August 2023 receipt), without leave under Rule 83(1). Invoking Rule 84(a) it was deemed withdrawn and cited Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (SC Application No. 52 of 1995 on procedural rigour.
Appellant
The Appellant admitted delay but urged validation under Rule 2(2) (dispensing with rules for justice) and Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution which cautions against technicalities. Further attributed the delay to administrative certification issues and cited Elizabeth Kobusingye v Annet Zvambwa (CACA No. 245 of 2019) for flexibility in service omissions.
On Ground 1(on limitation)
Appellant
The Appellant submitted that the cause accrued in the 1960 lease allocation for Kyangwali, barring the 2020 suit under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Cited Ngeko Smith & Others v Attorney General (SCCA No. 7 of 2006) on delays post-accrual.
Respondent
Submitted that accrual in 2016 (ULC title inclusion) and 2018 (OPM occupation); suit within 12-year (Limitation Act) and 6-year (RTA s.171) limits.
As such, the cause of action accrued only in 2018, when OPM encroached and settled refugees on his land.
Ground 2 (Title Validity)
The Appellant
Submitted that ULC's 2016 title (first in time) prevailed over the respondent's 2019 title; the latter derived from a defective 1934 customary certificate lacking boundaries. Sought cancellation for fraud/illegality; cited Wreck Motors Enterprises v Commissioner of Lands (Civil Appeal No. 77 of 1997) on priority.
The Respondent
Submitted that a valid root in 1934 certificate, lawful freehold conversion; ULC title defeasible under RTA ss.160(c)/(d) (fraud/erroneous inclusion).
As such, his title was lawfully derived from a 1934 ownership certificate, transferred through family succession and processed into freehold in 2019.
Ground 3 (Compensation)
Appellant
The Appellant submitted that UGX 30 billion was excessive, speculative, lacking comparables; invalid as based on respondent's flawed title. Distinguished from precedents like Attorney General v Henleg Property Developers Ltd (CA No. 421 of 2017, upheld SC CA No. 5 of 2023).
Respondent
Supported by unchallenged valuation (Obali Godwin); full market value under Article 26(2).
Ground 4 (General Damages)
Appellant
Submitted that UGX 420 million was harsh; not for quantifiable rental losses (should be special damages). Cited Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendu Edwards (SCA No. 7 of 2005) on appellate non-interference absent wrong principle.
Respondent
Justified for non-pecuniary inconvenience from deprivation.
Ground 5 (Interest)
Appellant
Submitted that the 23% excessive for non-commercial claim should be lower.
Respondent
Submitted that it was discretionary and reasonable, compensating time value; cited precedents upholding 25-30% (e.g., Kiggalang Coffee Ltd v Francis Ssenyonga, CACA No. 41 of 2006).
Court’s Findings
On the Preliminary Objection
The Court observed that the 60-day filing timeline under Rule 83(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules commenced upon the appellant's receipt of the certified record of proceedings in August 2023, rendering the January 18, 2024 filing over four months late (with a total inaction spanning 22 months).
It clarified that the appellant's administrative excuses were insufficient to excuse the delay, as the timeline runs strictly from receipt, not preparation. The Court reaffirmed the binding authority of Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (SC Application No. 52 of 1995), noting that Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution cautions against undue technicalities but does not abrogate procedural rules, especially where justice is not delayed, per Article 126(2)(b).
No timely application for leave was made, leading the Court to deem the appeal withdrawn under Rule 84(a).
It distinguished Elizabeth Kobusingye v Annet Zvambwa (CACA No. 245 of 2019), which involved a narrower service omission, and upheld the objection, disposing of the appeal on procedural grounds.
On Ground 1 (Limitation)
The Court reaffirmed the High Court's finding that the cause of action accrued in 2016 (when the ULC's title erroneously included the suit land) and crystallized in November 2018 (with the OPM's physical occupation and refugee settlement causing destruction), not in 1960 as alleged by the appellant.
It observed that evidence of continuous occupation since 1960 was rebutted by PW2's (Owen E. Sseremba's) satellite imagery analysis, showing the suit land as open forest in 2000, corroborated by unrebutted testimonies from PW5 (Mr. Mugenyi Ephraim, LC1 Chairman of Katikara) and PW6 (the respondent) detailing the 2018 invasion.
The Court clarified that the suit, filed on September 24, 2020, fell well within the 12-year limitation for land recovery under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the 6-year period for compensation under Section 171(1) of the RTA.
It distinguished Ngeko Smith & Others v Attorney General (SCCA No. 7 of 2006), where plaintiffs had unduly delayed post-accrual, unlike the respondent's prompt action here, and upheld the dismissal of the limitation objection.
On Ground 2 (Title Validity)
The Court observed that the respondent's title was rooted in a valid 1934 customary certificate from the Bunyoro-Kitara Kingdom, with lawful succession (to his father in 1985 and himself in 2012) and proper conversion to freehold tenure following institutional clearances, as affirmed by PW4 (Ronald Mwesigwa, Bunyoro-Kitara Kingdom Land Board Chairman) and PW5.
It clarified that the ULC's 2016 title (Plot 6) was defeasible under Section 160(d) of the RTA to the extent it erroneously overlapped with the respondent's Plot 110, and under Section 160(c) due to fraud, stemming from the expired 2009 lease (admitted by DW1, Charles Bafaki, as unrenewed, with illogical ongoing negotiations for a lease while holding freehold).
The Court reaffirmed that the 2022 joint boundary survey revealed a registration mistake by the Commissioner, reconciling Section 160(e) (earlier title prevails in overlaps) with defeasibility provisions, and ordered rectification of the ULC title to exclude the suit land.
It distinguished Wreck Motors Enterprises v Commissioner of Lands & 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. 77 of 1997), which concerned competing valid titles, and upheld the respondent's title as untainted by fraud.
On Ground 3 (Compensation)
The Court observed that the respondent's claim for UGX 30,067,542,200 was supported by the unchallenged valuation report of professional surveyor Mr. Obali Godwin, detailing market value for the 1,531.96-hectare suit land in Katikara.
It clarified that, absent any rebuttal evidence, competing valuation, or substantial cross-examination discrediting the methodology, the trial judge was entitled to adopt this expert evidence in full, per Amin Lutaganda v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2005).
The Court reaffirmed the constitutional imperative under Article 26(2) for full market-value compensation in cases of unlawful deprivation by state agencies like the OPM, citing Attorney General v Henleg Property Developers Ltd (CA No. 421 of 2017, upheld by SC CA No. 5 of 2023: UGX 50 billion affirmed) and Attorney General & Another v Byaruhanga & 2499 Others (CA Consolidated Appeals Nos. 246 & 375 of 2021 [2025] UGCA 79: UGX 52.6 billion+ in damages upheld based on credible valuations).
It distinguished National Forestry Authority v Omuhereza Basaliza & Others (Civil Appeal No. 75 of 2019), involving disputed boundaries and unverified squatter claims, and found no basis to interfere with the award as proportionate and non-excessive.
On Ground 4 (General Damages)
The Court observed that general damages are discretionary, aimed at compensating non-quantifiable losses or inconveniences from wrongful acts, such as the respondent's deprivation of land use for his sugarcane enterprise .
It clarified that the High Court erred in principle by deriving the UGX 420,000,000 award from an unpleaded tabulation of rental costs (UGX 800 million over seven years at UGX 365,000 per hectare), which should have been claimed and proved as special damages per Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (SCCA No. 77 of 1992) and Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305.
The Court reaffirmed that appellate interference is warranted only for wrong principles or wholly erroneous estimates, Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendu Edwards, SCA No. 7 of 2005, and mere assertions of excess are insufficient absent demonstrated misjudgment, Uganda Revenue Authority v Wanume Daudi Kitamirike, CA No. 43 of 2010.
Accordingly, it set aside the UGX 420 million award and substituted UGX 100 million as a reasonable atonement for the respondent's tangible and intangible losses, finding the adjustment proportionate to the scale of the unlawful taking.
On Ground 5 (Interest)
The Court observed that interest awards are inherently discretionary, with rates tailored to compensate for the time value of money and deter unjust enrichment from delayed payments, particularly on general damages from the judgment date.
It clarified that the 23% per annum rate was neither penal nor excessive, considering the prolonged deprivation (since 2018), claim nature, and prevailing economic conditions, and fell within established precedents upholding 25-30% rates (Charles Lutanga v Centenary Rural Development Bank, CA No. 30 of 1999; Omungokol v Attorney General, SCCA No. 6 of 2012; Kiggalang Coffee Ltd v Francis Ssenyonga, CACA No. 41 of 2006; Florence Musumba v Uganda Development Bank, CACA No. 247 of 2025; URA v Stephen Mbabosi, CAOA No. 26 of 1995).
The Court reaffirmed that non-commercial matters do not preclude such rates, as the focus is restorative justice, and found no misdirection in the trial judge's exercise of discretion, interference being limited to errors in principle, irrelevant factors, or plainly wrong outcomes.
Holding
The Court of Appeal upheld the preliminary objection, holding that the appeal was incompetent for being filed out of time.
Even if considered on merits, the Court found;
Respondent’s claim was within limitation.
Respondent was the lawful owner of the suit land.
ULC’s 2016 title was invalid.
Compensation and damages were justified.
Uphold compensation of UGX 30,067,542,200.
Substitute general damages to UGX 100,000,000.
Uphold interest the 23% p.a. from High Court judgment till payment.
Appellant pays costs in both courts.
Key Takeaways
Strict Compliance with Appeal Timelines Failure to lodge an appeal within 60 days without extension renders it incompetent, regardless of substantive justice arguments.
Limitation Runs from Actual Encroachment, Historical allocation does not bar a claim where unlawful occupation occurs later. The cause of action accrues at the time of actual deprivation.
Invalid Government Titles, Titles procured without legal basis, especially after expiry of a lease, are defeasible under s.160 RTA even if registered earlier.
Land Title Priority and Defeasibility
The "First in time" yields to substantive rights; state titles (e.g., ULC) are defeasible under RTA s.160(c)/(d) if procured fraudulently/erroneously over private land (post-lease expiry). Customary roots (e.g., 1934 Bunyoro certificates) are valid if properly converted. Overlaps trigger rectification; surveys critical.
Article 126(2)(e) Constitution, The rule against undue regard to technicalities does not excuse deliberate disregard of procedural timelines.
Read the full case
.jpg)
