The High Court Affirms That Delayed Assertion of Ownership Rights Can Undermine Claims, Especially When The Original Owner is Deceased.
- Waboga David
- Jan 12
- 4 min read
In this recent decision, the plaintiffs found themselves in a tricky situation. Their claim? That they were the rightful owners of a piece of land in Kirinya, Uganda. How? They argued they had purchased the land and had been caretakers for years.
But the court wasn’t convinced. In fact, it went, “Wait a minute! If you were owners, why didn’t you act like it earlier?”
The crux of the matter boiled down to credibility of evidence and timing.
Here’s what the court discovered:
Contradictions in the Plaintiffs’ Story
The plaintiffs submitted a sale agreement to support their claim. However, key details didn’t add up:
One clause claimed the full purchase price was paid.
Another clause suggested the payment was incomplete.
No further evidence was submitted to clarify this glaring inconsistency, leaving the court skeptical.
Delayed Assertion of Ownership
The plaintiffs had been on the land for years, but as caretakers, not active owners. They only began asserting ownership after the original owner-Ms. Dorothy Opio-passed away in 2020. This raised eyebrows:
Why didn’t they demand documents or take possession earlier?
Why were they planting crops like tenants, not developing the land as owners?
Meanwhile, the defendant brought their A-game
📍A 2012 sale agreement signed by the late Ms. Opio, supported by witnesses and local leaders.
📍Approved building plans and other evidence of long-term use of the land.
📍The defendant’s evidence painted a clearer picture of ownership, which the plaintiffs couldn’t refute. Facts
The plaintiffs, a couple, claimed they lawfully purchased the land in 2006 from the late Dorothy Opio. They relied on a sale agreement, tendered as evidence, which reflected a total purchase price of UGX 30 million. They asserted they had fully paid this amount, took possession of the land, and had lived as caretakers for over 12 years. The plaintiffs also presented witnesses to corroborate their version, including an individual who witnessed the transaction.
However, the sale agreement contained inconsistent clauses: one paragraph stated the purchase price was fully paid, while another required possession upon payment of a balance. Furthermore, no evidence was presented to show they had received vital documents from the late vendor, such as consent forms or a land title transfer, to formalize their ownership.
The Defendant’s Case
The defendant, Mr. Katusabe Lawrence, alleged that he had purchased the same land from Ms. Opio in 2012 for UGX 78 million. His sale agreement bore signatures from two witnesses and had been stamped by the local council chairman. He testified that he had visited the land, verified its boundaries, and paid the purchase price in installments, completing payment in 2016.
The defendant witness testified he was the known owner of the property and had been in possession since the purchase. Notably, one defense witness stated that the plaintiffs had admitted to being mere caretakers and even sought compensation from the defendant for maintaining the land.
Court Holding
The plaintiffs’ claim to the land was undermined by contradictions in their sale agreement and a lack of supporting documentation to demonstrate completion of the transaction. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence presented, including documents tendered in court, the nature of the plaintiffs’ status on the land became increasingly ambiguous, raising more questions than answers.
Witness testimony overwhelmingly supported the defendant’s possession of the land. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, appeared to have acted as caretakers and only sought to assert ownership after the vendor’s death.
The court drew on the principles established in Jennifer Nsubuga v Michael Mukundane & Anor (CACA No. 208 of 2018), which emphasized that while not expressly codified in statute, consulting local leadership in land transactions is crucial to establish due diligence. This principle was particularly relevant in the present case to determine if, when, and how the vendor formed the intention to sell the property.
The uncontroverted evidence of the deceased vendor’s brother, provided clarity on this matter. He testified that the vendor only decided to sell the property in 2009, and when she eventually sold it, the buyer was the defendant. Furthermore, the vendor introduced the defendant to local leaders and neighbors as the rightful owner, a critical step in affirming the legitimacy of the transaction. At no point did the vendor introduce the plaintiffs to the local council as owners of the kibanja.
The court also found that the defendant’s sale agreement, which bore the endorsement of the local council (LC), held considerable weight. While the plaintiffs argued that the LC stamp on the agreement was dated 8th January 2018—despite the agreement being executed on 17th March 2012—this discrepancy was insufficient to invalidate the agreement. The authenticity of the sale agreement was never challenged by the deceased during her lifetime.
It was the court's observation that, the plaintiffs had not acquired any valid interest in the land. As mere caretakers, they could neither prove ownership nor establish a claim of adverse possession. Evidence indicated that they only took physical possession of the land in 2019 after complaints about the property’s security arose, by which time the vendor was incapacitated.
The court concluded that the defendant’s claim to the land was supported by credible evidence, including his possession, the unchallenged validity of the sale agreement, and the deceased vendor’s clear intention to sell to him. Key Takeaways
Timing Matters If you own land, assert your rights promptly and consistently. Delays can cast doubt on your claim, especially if the original owner has passed away.
Documentation is King Ensure your sale agreements are clear, consistent, and backed by other supporting evidence like receipts or transfer forms.
Act Like an Owner Develop your property, maintain possession, and establish a presence to avoid being seen as a caretaker or trespasser.
This case is a powerful reminder that courts rely heavily on evidence and conduct to determine ownership. So, double-check your documents and act fast if your rights are being challenged.
By
Waboga David
Find the case below
.jpg)
Comentários