High Court Affirms Landowner’s Constitutional Right to Dispose of Property and Rules that Untranslated or Unadmitted Evidence Cannot Be Relied Upon

Brief of the Ogwang Francis v Apili Sarah (Civil Appeal No. 045 of 2021) [2025] UGHC 262 (8 May 2025)

Area of Law: Land Law, Constitutional Law, Property Law and Civil Procedure

Introduction

Imagine you own land and, after careful thought, you distribute it among your children. Over a decade later, one of them returns to accuse you of having distributed it fraudulently. Can a parent’s decision to allocate land to their children suddenly become the subject of a fraud claim years down the line?

In this case, the appellant challenged a 2012 distribution of land by his father, Mr. Lawrenti, claiming fraud and asserting a later redistribution in 2014. The High Court rejected these claims, emphasising the landowner's autonomy to distribute property under Article 26(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to own and dispose of property.

The court reiterated that property law is premised on private autonomy. Mr. Lawrenti, as the landowner, was within his rights to distribute land among his children as he saw fit

Brief Facts of the Case

This case involved a land dispute between step-siblings over three gardens situated in Acotedo Village, Amolatar District, Uganda. The disputed land originally belonged to their father, Mr. Lawrenti Ogwal, who is said to have distributed his land among his children during his lifetime, specifically at a clan-sanctioned event on 13 October 2012.

The respondent (the sister) claimed to have been allocated the suit land during that distribution, with boundaries marked by trees. She alleged that the appellant (her step-brother) later removed the boundary markers, trespassed on the land, threatened her, and refused to vacate even after police and clan intervention.

In 2013, the appellant and some siblings unsuccessfully sued their father, challenging the land distribution. In 2021, the respondent sued the appellant for trespass and was declared the rightful owner by the Magistrate Grade One of Amolatar, who also awarded general damages and a permanent injunction

The appellant appealed, disputing the ownership ruling and citing procedural irregularities during the trial, particularly regarding the locus in quo visit and the trial court's alleged failure to properly evaluate evidence, including claims that the 2012 distribution was invalidated and replaced by a 2014 re-distribution.

Holding

The High Court upheld the decision of the trial court, finding that the 2012 land distribution by Mr. Lawrenti, the father of the parties, was valid and not fraudulent. The appellant failed to prove that the alleged 2014 redistribution occurred or that his father lacked capacity or acted fraudulently.

The court concluded that the appellant’s actions, including trespass on land allocated to his sister (the respondent), were unjustified, and his claim lacked merit.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the respondent's ownership of the suit land as allocated in 2012 was upheld.

The Court reaffirmed that:

The right to property under Article 26(1) of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda encompasses the freedom to dispose of property. That right is fundamental and cannot be curtailed absent proof of compulsory acquisition, court-ordered attachment, or legal limitation such as in the case of family land requiring spousal consent (see Land Act, s. 40(1)(c)).

It further emphasized the court's responsibility to assist unrepresented litigants in translating documents, provided it does not compromise judicial neutrality.

Rule of Law

1. The court reaffirmed that under Article 26(1) of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda, every person has the right to own and freely dispose of property. This includes the right to distribute one's land as one wishes, barring statutory or constitutional limitations such as those governing family land under the Land Act, Cap 236.

2. A party challenging a distribution of land on grounds such as fraud must prove their case on the balance of probabilities. Mere dissatisfaction or absence during the distribution exercise is insufficient to invalidate it.

3. Documents not translated into English (the language of the court) or not admitted as exhibits cannot be relied upon in judgment. However, courts are expected to assist self-represented litigants to ensure fairness, such as facilitating translation where appropriate.

4. Minor contradictions in testimony that do not go to the core of the case are inconsequential. Credibility is assessed in light of pleadings, consistency with admitted facts, and the overall reliability of oral evidence.

   
   

Key Takeaways

1. The court reiterated that property ownership includes the right to freely dispose of land, and such autonomy is constitutionally protected. The 2012 distribution by the father was valid despite perceived inequalities.

2. Allegations of fraud must be proved on the balance of probabilities. The appellant’s claims were unsupported by credible evidence and contradicted by oral testimony and his own pleadings.

3. Evidence not translated into English or formally admitted at trial cannot be relied on. Parties must ensure compliance with Section 88 of the Civil Procedure Act. Nevertheless, courts are encouraged to assist self-represented litigants in document translation where necessary.

4. Customary leaders do not have legal authority to redistribute land in the absence of the owner’s consent or a court order. Unauthorized redistribution is invalid.

5. Minor contradictions in witness testimony are not fatal unless they go to the root of the dispute. The court found the appellant’s witnesses lacked credibility, while the respondent’s account aligned with both oral and documentary evidence.

   
   

Implications

This decision reinforces the primacy of constitutional property rights and the legal sanctity of a landowner’s intent. It cautions against misuse of customary authority and unsubstantiated fraud allegations in family land disputes.