High Court in Lira Affirms That 50+ Years of Exclusive Possession Perfects an Inter Vivos Gift – Customary Land Reversion Claims Fail Without Proof of Temporariness

Waboga David
Dec 12, 2025
6 min read

Facts

The case originated from a land dispute in Dokolo Magistrates Court (Land Claim No. 002 of 2019), where the respondent, Ongom Alfred, sued the appellant, Agel George, claiming ownership of approximately six gardens of customary land located in Agweno Cell, Atur Ward, Dokolo Town Council, Dokolo District.

The respondent asserted that he inherited the land from his late father, Agel Jimmy, who had acquired it from his grandfather, Omoi, in the 1920s. According to the respondent, in 1965, his father temporarily donated the land to Oneyeko Albino (also referred to as Onyeko or Agel Albino), the appellant's uncle, for settlement with his wife, Anna Maria.

Oneyeko died in 1988, and Anna Maria remained on the land until 2015, after which the appellant allegedly trespassed and began cultivating it, claiming inheritance from his uncle. The respondent reported the matter to the Local Council III (LC III) court in 2017, which ruled in his favor, ordering the appellant to vacate.

The respondent then filed suit in 2019 seeking a declaration of ownership, eviction, damages, and costs.

The appellant denied the claims, asserting that he inherited the land from his uncle, Oneyeko Albino, who had cleared it as virgin forest in 1937. The appellant claimed Oneyeko invited him to settle there in 1965, educated him, married a wife for him in 1984, and gifted him part of the land.

Oneyeko died in 1989, leaving his widow, Anna Maria, on the land, whom the appellant and his family cared for. The appellant alleged the respondent began disturbing him between 2007 and 2010. Clan meetings were held, and the appellant claimed the respondent conceded ownership to him but later sued due to alleged defamation.

The Magistrates Court ruled in favor of the respondent on December 1, 2021, declaring him the owner, finding the appellant a trespasser, ordering eviction, awarding UGX 5,000,000 in general damages with 6% interest, and costs with interest. The appellant appealed to the High Court on six grounds, primarily challenging the evaluation of evidence, application of limitation laws, and the Magistrate's findings.

The appeal was initially dismissed for want of prosecution on May 10, 2023, but reinstated by consent on October 29, 2024. Submissions were filed, and the High Court heard the matter on November 27, 2024.

Issues

The High Court condensed the appellant's six repetitive and poorly drafted grounds of appeal into key issues:

Whether the respondent's suit was barred by the 12-year limitation period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the trial court properly evaluated the evidence on record, including whether it ignored consistent defense evidence, recorded incomplete evidence, and accepted evidence varying from pleadings.
Whether the trial court erred in declaring the respondent the owner of the suit land and granting the associated reliefs (eviction, damages, and costs).

Submissions

Appellant's Submissions (by Mr. Andrew Odur on brief for Mr. Tomusange Abdul),

The grounds of appeal, though poorly drafted by the appellant himself (a non-lawyer), should be pardoned to allow substantive justice, especially in a land matter.
The suit was time-barred as the cause of action accrued in 2007-2010 when the respondent began disturbing the appellant.
The trial court failed to properly evaluate evidence, ignored defense witnesses and documentary evidence (e.g., a purported clan settlement agreement), and relied on incomplete records.
The land was cleared as virgin forest by the appellant's uncle in 1937 and gifted to the appellant in 1984; clan meetings confirmed the appellant's ownership.
Reliefs granted were misconceived due to improper analysis.

The appellant sought to quash the trial judgment, order a fresh trial, or declare him the owner, with costs.

Respondent's Submissions (by Mr. Ponsiano Okello and Mr. Gabriel Obua)

The grounds of appeal should be struck out for being imprecise, argumentative, and offensive to Order 43 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, citing precedents like National Insurance Corporation v. Pelican Air Services.
The suit was not time-barred, as the cause accrued in 2015 when the appellant trespassed after the donee's widow vacated.
The trial court correctly evaluated evidence showing the land was temporarily donated in 1965 and reverted to the respondent upon the donor's death in 1978.
Clan meetings were inconclusive, and the respondent's evidence proved ownership on a balance of probabilities.
Reliefs were justified.

Legal Representation

Appellant: Represented by Mr. Tomusange Abdul (briefed by Mr. Andrew Odur during the hearing).
Respondent: Jointly represented by Mr. Ponsiano Okello and Mr. Gabriel Obua (absent during the hearing but submissions filed).

Both parties were self-represented in the Magistrates' Court, contributing to poorly drafted pleadings.

Court's Findings

The High Court, per Hon. Mr. Justice George Okello, conducted a full re-evaluation of evidence as a first appellate court, guided by precedents like Selle & another v. Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd (1968) E.A 123.

On Limitation (Ground 1)

The court found the suit not time-barred, as the cause accrued between 2010 (per appellant) and 2015 (per respondent), and the suit was filed in 2019, well within 12 years.

"Clearly, from the parties’ averments, and evidence... the respondent was well within the 12-year limitation period to sue for recovery of the suit land... I therefore find it disingenuous for the appellant to claim that the suit was barred by section 5 of the Limitation Act."

On Evaluation of Evidence and Grounds of Appeal

The trial court erred by not fully evaluating evidence, omitting cross-examinations and defense witnesses, and reaching premature conclusions. The High Court ignored deficient locus in quo records (e.g., unsigned sketch map).

"It is clear to my mind that the trial court did not evaluate the evidence given by the two sides before reaching the impugned conclusion. The learned Magistrate appears to have made up his mind too soon before considering the evidence, which he did only partly. There was a lack of flow in the trial court’s reasoning."

On Ownership and Gift Inter Vivos

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.

"I find the evidence of long use and occupation of the suit land for over 50 years provable of the fact that the suit land was gifted inter vivos... The intention to give, the delivery, as well as the acceptance of the gifted land is confirmed by the long possession and use by the donee and his spouse during the lifetime of the donor." Clan evidence supported the appellant, and the respondent bore but failed to discharge the burden of proof under Sections 101-103 of the Evidence Act.

On Reliefs and Other Complaints

Reliefs were unjustified due to improper evaluation. No settlement agreement was admitted, but clan concessions favored the appellant. The trial court's partial summary and framing of issues were flawed:

"The pivotal issue for determination was about who of the parties is the rightful owner of the suit land."

Holding

The appeal succeeds.

The Magistrates Court's judgment and orders are set aside in their entirety.

The respondent's suit (Dokolo Land Claim No. 002 of 2019) is dismissed.

The appellant, Anna Maria (the donee's widow), and those claiming under them retain possession. If the respondent took possession post-trial judgment, he must vacate within 90 days from December 10, 2025, or face eviction.

Costs of the appeal and trial court awarded to the appellant.

Key Takeaways

Courts may apply less stringent standards to pleadings drafted by non-lawyers, especially in land disputes, to prioritize merit over technicalities, but each case turns on its facts (citing Okello Bosco & Ogwal Sam Kato v. Okello Ostino).
Limitation in Land Claims
The 12-year period for recovery of land starts from when the cause accrues (e.g., trespass), not historical events like initial donation. Novel limitation pleas on appeal require evidential support.
First appellate courts must fully re-hear cases, evaluating all evidence holistically, without blindly following trial findings if inconsistent (per Selle v. Associated Motor Boat Co.).
Gift Inter Vivos in Customary Land
Requires intent to give, delivery, and acceptance; long-term exclusive possession (e.g., 50+ years) proves permanence. Temporary claims need strong evidence; reversion to donor's heirs is invalid if gift is perfected.
Clan Resolutions are non-binding but relevant to credibility; concessions in meetings can undermine claims if unrebutted.
Locus in Quo Records
Must be authentic, signed, and dated; deficiencies render them unreliable.