High Court of Uganda at Gulu upholds the lower Court’s declaration of ownership over customary land and clarifies that silence or omission by witnesses does not amount to contradiction.

Waboga David
Sep 17
3 min read

Facts

The Respondent (Agwero Armstrong) sued the Appellants in Nwoya Magistrates Court claiming ownership of 30 acres of customary land at Te-got B Village, Nwoya District. He alleged inheritance from his late father and grandfather and that the Appellants had trespassed after the insurgency, even selling portions to third parties.

The Appellants denied the claim, counterclaimed ownership, and alleged inheritance through their family lines. The trial Magistrate declared the Respondent the rightful owner, granted vacant possession, a permanent injunction, and awarded UGX 10,000,000 in general damages plus costs.

Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed on grounds of:

Contradictory evidence on the size of the land.
Improper conduct of the locus in quo.
Excessive award of general damages.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in relying on contradictory evidence about the size of the land.
Whether the locus in quo was improperly conducted.
Whether the award of general damages was excessive and unjustified.

Submissions

For the Appellants

Claimed contradictions in Respondent’s evidence on the size of land (30 acres vs. varying testimonies).

Argued that the Magistrate failed to ascertain the actual size of the land during locus in quo and improperly relied on a sketch map.

Contended that the award of UGX 10,000,000 in general damages was excessive given the Appellants’ socio-economic status.

For the Respondent

Asserted that evidence consistently established the land at 30 acres; no material contradictions existed.

Maintained that locus in quo was properly conducted, with a sketch map confirming boundaries and neighbors.

Defended the damages award as reasonable compensation for loss of quiet enjoyment and inconvenience.

Court’s Findings

On Contradictions:
Mere discrepancies do not amount to contradictions unless they directly conflict on material facts.
The court found no contradiction in the Respondent’s evidence. The failure of PW2, PW3, and PW4 to mention the suit land’s size did not contradict PW1’s testimony of 30 acres. A contradiction requires opposing statements on material facts, not mere silence on details (citing David Ojeabuo v. Federal Republic of Nigeria and Kayinamura Andrew v. Uganda).
The Respondent’s witnesses did not contradict his evidence; silence on size does not equal contradiction.
Ground 1 failed.
On Locus in Quo:
The court upheld the trial Magistrate’s conduct of the locus visit, which complied with Practice Direction No. 1 of 2007. The trial Magistrate drew a sketch map delineating the suit land’s boundaries, consistent with the Respondent’s evidence (PW1, PW2, PW3) about neighboring landmarks.

The court emphasized that visible monuments (e.g., Lila hill, Goma-Busia footpath) prevail over admeasurements when describing land (citing Ojara Samuel v. Bwomi Zezi). No fresh evidence or new witnesses were introduced at the locus, and the Appellants’ counsel abandoned the claim of fresh evidence.
Ground 2 failed.
On General Damages
The court acknowledged that the trial Magistrate did not provide reasons for the UGX 10,000,000 award. However, sufficient evidence supported the award since the Respondent testified that the 1st Appellant occupied the suit land in 2008, built a tent, and sold portions in 2016 and 2021. The 2nd and 3rd Appellants also trespassed by cultivating the land (corroborated by PW2 and PW3).
This caused inconvenience and denied the Respondent quiet enjoyment of his land.

Furthermore, the court observed that general damages aim to restore the injured party to their original position (restitutio in integrum), guided by the value of the subject matter, economic inconvenience, and nature of the breach (citing Uganda Commercial Bank v. Kigozi and Kabandize v. Kampala Capital City Authority).

The court rejected the Appellants’ argument that damages should consider their socio-economic status, as this violates Article 126(2)(a) of the Ugandan Constitution (justice irrespective of status).

An appellate court may only interfere with damages if the trial court applied a wrong principle or the amount is grossly erroneous (citing Robert Cuossens v. Attorney General). The UGX 10,000,000 award was reasonable and justifiable. Ground 3 failed.

Holding

The appeal was dismissed in its entirety with costs.

The High Court affirmed the Respondent as the lawful owner of the suit land and upheld the trial court’s award of vacant possession, permanent injunction, and UGX 10,000,000 general damages.

Key Principles

Silence or omission by witnesses does not amount to contradiction unless inconsistent on material facts (David Ojeabuo v. FRN [2014]).
The Purpose of Locus in Quo is to clarify and verify court evidence, not to gather new testimony. Visible monuments prevail over measurements in determining land boundaries.
Awarded at the court’s discretion to restore injured parties to their original position, irrespective of social or economic status (Uganda Commercial Bank v. Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305).
An appellate court will not interfere with general damages unless the trial court applied wrong principles or the award is manifestly excessive or inadequate.