High Court at Kabale Upholds Lower Court's Ruling on Competing Land Ownership Claims, Emphasizing Requirement for Letters of Administration in Estate-Derived Sales

Background and Brief Facts

The first land purchaser, Nkiriyihe Jonas, bought the suit land from Manigahura Charles for UGX 3,500,000 in October 2020. The vendor, Manigahura Charles, had himself bought the land from Nzaraba Gideon on 5th September 1993. The first purchaser claimed to have taken possession and cultivated the suit land until February 2022.

Actions for trespass, recovery of the suit land, compensation for unauthorised exploitation, and a permanent injunction were brought against the second land purchaser, who had, without authority or justification, entered onto the suit land and planted onions and sweet potatoes.

The second land purchaser, Habumugisha Yefuta, claimed to have purchased the suit land from the family of the late Bahenga Yesaya, a brother to Sebikeri Tabaro, on 20th March 2021, at a consideration of UGX 800,000 for the first portion. He further claimed to have purchased a second portion on 20th September 2021 for UGX 4,000,000 from Nginzira Amos, whose mother was the first wife of the late Bahenga Yesaya.

A third portion of the same land was allegedly purchased by the second purchaser on 15th April 2021 from three brothers, Gakarane Benon, Basitazi Bakunzi, and Mukondori Hodesta, for UGX 700,000. The second purchaser contended that all three pieces belonged to the same family, who had divided the land into three portions. He further claimed that the land was subject to a sharing deed relating to the estate of the late Bahenga Yusufu, the original of which was given to him at the commencement of the suit.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The learned Trial Magistrate, on 16th August 2024, made a finding of law that the proper action was recovery of land, as opposed to trespass, since recovery of land requires the plaintiff to prove either physical or constructive possession, while trespass is concerned with the enforcement of possessory rights.

Upon conducting a locus visit, the Trial Magistrate found that the appellant (the second land purchaser) had failed to conduct due diligence prior to purchasing the suit land. The court also found that, had he done so, he would have discovered that the suit land had already been lawfully sold by the rightful vendor.

The respondent (the first land purchaser) was declared the rightful owner of the land and was awarded UGX 4,000,000 in general damages, giving rise to this appeal.

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL

The learned Trial Chief Magistrate erred in law and fact when he held that there were major contradictions in the appellant’s evidence regarding where his purchase agreements were executed, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
The learned Trial Chief Magistrate erred in law and fact when he decreed that the suit land belonged to the respondent, in total disregard of the facts and evidence on record.

SUBMISSIONS

Appellant’s Submissions

The appellant contended that any contradictions in his testimony (e.g., execution locations) were minor and peripheral, not indicative of deliberate falsehood, and should have been clarified by the trial court during the locus in quo rather than used to discredit his case.

On ownership, the appellant invoked Sections 101(1) and 101(2) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 8, arguing the respondent bore the initial burden of proof, which was not discharged due to the failure to call Manigaruha Charles as a witness.

The appellant urged the court to set aside the lower judgment, emphasizing the distribution deed and his three sale agreements as superior evidence of title.

Respondent’s Submissions

The respondent submitted that he lawfully purchased the suit land from Manigahura Charles for UGX 3,500,000 in October 2020. He argued that actions for trespass, recovery of land, compensation for unauthorised exploitation, and a permanent injunction should be granted in his favour, as the appellant wrongfully entered the suit land and cultivated onions and sweet potatoes without any lawful authority.

LEGAL REPRESENTATION

The Appellant was represented by Mr. Felix Bakanyabonera of Bakanyabonera & Co. Advocates.
The Respondent was represented by Ms. Rebekah Ayesiga of Beitwenda & Co. Advocates.

RESOLUTION OF THE APPEAL

All grounds of appeal were addressed together. The Court agreed with Counsel for the respondent that no claim of ownership could be asserted from the distribution deed tendered in court in the absence of letters of administration, as confirmed in Buzandora Charles v Ndiroheye Juliet, 2025 UGHC 1054, where the Court held that any right to intestate property can only be established once letters of administration have been granted.

Further, Section 187 of the Succession Act, Cap 162, provides that no right to the property of a person who has died intestate shall be established in any court unless letters of administration have first been granted.

The Court found that the appellant was at fault for purchasing land and executing sale agreements away from the location of the land in Rakai and Rwanda. The appeal was dismissed as it failed on matters of law. The appellant lacked letters of administration and had no evidence of title to rebut the respondent’s lawful claim.

COURT’S FINDINGS

Duty of the First Appellate Court

The Court began by restating the duty of a first appellate court to re-evaluate and re-appraise the evidence on record in accordance with Henry Kifamunte v Uganda [Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997]. It emphasized that an appellate court must subject the entire evidence to fresh scrutiny—though without the advantage of observing witnesses—and intervene only where the trial court misapplied evidence, ignored material facts, or relied on wrong legal principles.

Contradictions in the Appellant’s Case

The Court found no merit in the appellant’s assertion of a miscarriage of justice. It held that the contradictions regarding the locations where the purchase agreements were signed (Rakai, Rwanda, and Kisoro) undermined the appellant’s credibility.

The record showed (see pp. 10–11 and 13) that the appellant executed the agreements far away from the actual location of the land, which the Trial Magistrate correctly interpreted as indicative of inadequate due diligence.

Additionally, PW3 (Mbonigaba Bernard, the LC1 Chairman and brother to the respondent) disowned the alleged distribution deed, testifying that it was unauthorized and could not create valid title.

The appellate court upheld the trial court’s finding:

“The trial Magistrate was correct in finding that the appellant is at fault for buying land, and executing sale and purchase agreements away from the location of the land in Rakai and Rwanda.”

Lack of Letters of Administration

The Court held firmly that none of the alleged sellers from the family of the late Bahenga Yesaya had authority to pass title to the appellant because no letters of administration had been obtained in respect of the estate.

Quoting Buzandora Charles v Ndiroheye Juliet, 2025 UGHC 1054:

“Any right to the intestate’s property can only be established when letters of administration are granted by court.”

The Court further relied on Section 187 of the Succession Act:

“…no right to any part of the property of a person who has died intestate shall be established in any court of justice, unless letters of administration have first been granted…”

As a result, the Court held that the sharing deed relied upon by the appellant did not constitute valid evidence of title, and could not rebut the respondent’s lawfully established interest.

Respondent’s Ownership Proven

The Court upheld the finding that the respondent proved lawful ownership. The respondent’s 2020 purchase (PEX1 and PEX2) was supported by credible and mutually consistent testimony from:

PW1 – the respondent
PW2 – the vendor, Manigahura Charles
PW3 – the LC1 Chairman, who also corroborated the respondent’s possession

The appellant produced no evidence capable of displacing this proof of ownership.

The Court applied Section 110 of the Evidence Act to reaffirm that:

“When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he or she is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he or she is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he or she is not the owner.”

The appellant failed to discharge that burden.

Appellant Failed to Conduct Due Diligence

The Court agreed with the trial court that the appellant’s conduct demonstrated a total failure of due diligence. The appellant bought the land from persons with no lawful authority, executed agreements away from the locus of the land, and relied on unverified family arrangements.

The Court reiterated:

“The appellant is at fault for buying land and executing sale agreements away from the location of the land in Rakai and Rwanda.”

Such omissions rendered his claim legally untenable.

Priority of Prior Unregistered Interests

Because the suit land is unregistered land, the Court applied the principle that priority is determined by time, not registration. Thus, the respondent’s earlier 2020 purchase took precedence over the appellant’s later 2021 agreements.

The Court emphasized:

“In respect of unregistered land, the earlier agreement prevails.”

The sharing deed, unsupported by letters of administration, could not operate to defeat the respondent’s prior equitable interest.

Overall Evaluation

The Court concluded that the appellant’s counterclaim should not have succeeded at all, as it was based on an invalid chain of title. Although the trial magistrate did not expressly dismiss it, the appellate court found the evaluation of evidence fundamentally sound.

The respondent’s title was established; the appellant’s was not. The alleged “distribution” of the land occurred prematurely and unlawfully without verification of estate ownership. The family’s relocation to Rakai and Rwanda did not exempt them from statutory compliance with the Succession Act.

RULE OF LAW / LEGAL PRINCIPLE APPLIED

Absence of letters of administration bars any lawful claim to the property of a deceased person. Only a grant of probate or letters of administration gives a person legal standing to deal with, claim, or defend rights over estate property. (Buzandora Charles v Ndiroheye Juliet, 2025 UGHC 1054).

KEY TAKEAWAYS

A claim for trespass cannot succeed without proof of ownership.
Without letters of administration, one cannot lawfully assert rights over property belonging to a deceased person.
Where a claim to property is derived from a deceased owner, a grant of probate or letters of administration is mandatory; otherwise, the claim should be referred or converted into an administration cause.
Buyers must verify vendor authority through local inquiries (e.g., LC1 verification) and avoid remote executions, which signal red flags. Failure invites adverse possession findings and damages.
The judgment stresses an "urgent need for education" on intestate succession. Relocated families cannot bypass formal probate; claims against estates must invoke the Succession Act, potentially via intermeddling suits if delays prejudice third parties.