The High Court Has Clarified Key Legal Principles Regarding Land Ownership, Possessory Rights, and The Administration of Public Land in Uganda.
- Waboga David
- Jan 25
- 7 min read
To understand this case, imagine this: A family owns a piece of land, passed down through generations, but without a clear title or will. One day, a respected aunt announces she is gifting the land to her nephews. Years later, an uncle steps forward, claiming the land is part of the family estate (which the aunt had gifted to her nephews). He accuses the nephews of forgery and fraud. Both sides present compelling evidence.
At the heart of this dispute, landowners in Uganda should ask themselves:
When is a gift not truly a gift? When does possession outweigh title? And what happens when the intentions of the deceased collide with the claims of the living, and conflicting allegations of fraud arise?
This recent case of Abdul v Abdalla & 3 Others (Civil Appeal 54 of 2020) [2025] UGHC 20 (23 January 2025) reveals the challenges landowners face in Uganda. It highlights how land, deeply tied to family heritage, can spark legal and emotional conflicts. The issue of statutory leases, previously granted to urban authorities under Article 286, was phased out. However, Articles 237(5) and (6) provided a pathway for their conversion to freehold, as legislated by Parliament. Yet, why do they remain a source of contestation?
Then there is the role of District Land Boards. While they act as successors to former controlling authorities and manage public land not alienated to individuals or entities, disputes like these persist.
Remember every piece of evidence tells a story—and the law must decide which one to believe.
Facts
The Respondents (plaintiffs) filed Civil Suit No. 12 of 2019 against their uncle, Ibrahim Addalla, in the Chief Magistrates Court of Gulu, claiming ownership of a piece of land (the suit land) allegedly gifted to them by their aunt, Hajjati Zamzam Ibrahim, through a document dated 12th June 1999. The Respondents argued that Hajjati Zamzam had peacefully occupied the suit land and later gifted it to them and another family member as a valid gift inter vivos. They further claimed possession of the suit land, which they rented out and managed as a family asset.
Over time, disputes arose after the land was mismanaged, and family resolutions to sell the land were ignored. In 2018, Ibrahim Addalla sought to claim ownership by paying ground rent in his name and securing a lease offer from the Gulu District Land Board. The Respondents alleged fraud and sought a declaration that they were rightful owners of the suit land, an injunction against Addalla’s actions, damages, and costs.
In defense, Ibrahim Addalla argued that the suit land belonged to his late father, Ibrahim Abdalla Lakwor, who died intestate, and that it was part of the family estate. He denied the validity of the alleged gift, claiming that Hajjati Zamzam was illiterate, did not own the land, and that the purported gift document was forged. He contended that the land was always part of the family estate and any possession by Zamzam was due to her status as a family member.
Lower Court Decision
The trial magistrate ruled in favor of the Respondents, recognizing their claim over the suit land. Dissatisfied, Ibrahim Addalla filed an appeal before passing away. His son, Abdul Bar Abdallah, was granted letters of administration to prosecute the appeal.
Grounds of Appeal
The trial court erred in finding that the suit land belonged to Hajjati Zamzam Ibrahim instead of the estate of the late Ibrahim Abdalla Lakwor.
The trial court failed to properly evaluate the evidence and find that the purported gift document was invalid.
Key Submissions
For the Appellant
Counsel argued that the Respondents failed to prove ownership under any legally recognized tenure system and that Zamzam’s possession of the land was as a tenant at will under the Public Land Act. They contended the gift was invalid, lacked intention, and was not executed in accordance with legal requirements.
They also argued that the will presented by the Respondents was forged, as Zamzam was illiterate and incapable of writing the document.
For the Respondents:
Counsel maintained that possession of the land by Zamzam and later the Respondents established title enforceable against all except those with superior claims. They argued that the land was gifted as an inter vivos gift, satisfying all legal requirements.
They also emphasized that evidence presented at the trial, including visits to the locus in quo, demonstrated Zamzam’s possession and development of the land.
Court of Appeal Proceedings
The appeal was heard on 19th January 2024, with arguments focused on ownership of the land, the validity of the gift, and the proper evaluation of evidence. The Respondents countered the appeal, arguing that the grounds were vague and the trial court’s findings were well-founded. The Appellant maintained that the land was family property and that the trial court erred in its judgment.
The Court's Holding
In order to determine whether Abdalla Ibrahim Lakwar or Hajati Zamzam Ibrahim owned the suit land, the court considered the importance of analyzing the evolution of land law in Uganda with emphasis on land outside Buganda especially in urban areas.
Historical Context of Land Law in Uganda
Justice Philip Odoki observed that the evolution of land ownership in Uganda, particularly outside Buganda, underwent significant shifts under colonial administration:
Crown Land Designation (1902)
Under the Uganda Order in Council, 1902, all land outside Buganda became "Crown Land," vested in the Governor in trust for the British Crown (Section 2)
The Governor was authorized to grant, lease, or permit temporary occupation of Crown Land, subject to conditions set out under Section 7.
Crown Lands Ordinance, Cap 117
Restrictive provisions under Section 20 prohibited unlicensed occupation of Crown Land within urban boundaries. Licenses or leases had to be granted by the Governor or other authorized individuals.
Temporary Occupation Licenses (Section 21) allowed for conditional, time-limited occupancy, revocable by notice.
Transition to Public Land (1962)
Post-independence, the Public Land Act, of 1962 reclassified Crown Land as Public Land. Statutory leases were vested in urban authorities, empowering them to manage and grant leases (Sections 15 and 19).
The Public Lands Act, of 1969 maintained this framework until the promulgation of the 1995 Constitution.
The 1995 Constitution and Land Act
Article 237(1) vested land ownership in citizens of Uganda under four tenure systems: customary, freehold, mailo, and leasehold. Statutory leases to urban authorities were abolished (Article 286).
The Land Act operationalized these constitutional changes, transferring the powers of controlling authorities to District Land Boards (Section 59).
Ownership Analysis of The Competing Claims in The Instant Facts.
Appellant’s Claim (Abdalla Ibrahim Lakwar)
The court observed that the appellant failed to provide evidence of a lease or valid occupation license issued to Abdalla Ibrahim Lakwar. Witness testimonies were found to be hearsay and unsupported by documentation.
The Statutory Declaration by Kubra merely asserted ownership without evidentiary backing.
Respondents’ Claim (Hajati Zamzam Ibrahim)
The Respondents presented occupation permits and receipts for ground rent as evidence of lawful occupation by Hajati Zamzam Ibrahim.
Testimonies corroborated her occupation of the suit land from the 1960s until her death in 2002. The evidence of ground rent payments and occupation permits established her status as a bona fide occupant under Article 237(8) of the Constitution and Section 31(1) of the Land Act.
Concerning Ownership and Tenure Systems
The court affirmed that the 1995 Constitution introduced significant changes to Uganda’s land tenure system. Article 237 vests land ownership in the citizens of Uganda under four tenure systems: customary, freehold, mailo, and leasehold.
Statutory leases previously granted to urban authorities under Article 286 ceased, but Article 237(5) and (6) allowed for their conversion to freehold as legislated by Parliament. The Land Act operationalized these provisions as affirmed in the precedent of Kampala District Land Board & Anor v National Housing and Construction Corporation, SCCA No. 2 of 2004.
About the Role of District Land Boards
The Court clarified that District Land Boards are empowered under Section 59 of the Land Act to:
📌Hold and allocate land not owned by any person in a district.
📌Facilitate registration and transfer of land interests.
📌Assume the powers of lessors for leases granted by former controlling authorities.
📌The boards act as successors to former controlling authorities concerning public land not alienated to individuals or entities.
In regards to Bona Fide Occupancy and Possessory Rights
The court affirmed that Article 237(8) of the Constitution and Section 31(1) of the Land Act provide protection to bona fide occupants of land.
Possession is a legally recognized title enforceable against all except those with a better title as affirmed in the precedent of Boiti Bonny v Imalingat Lawrence, Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 239 of 2016 where Gashirabaki JA held that possession confers enforceable rights to exclude others without a superior title.
Citing Asher v. Whitlock (1865), the court reaffirmed that a person in peaceful possession has a defensible interest capable of inheritance or transfer.
Concerning Gifts Inter Vivos
The court reaffirmed that for a gift inter vivos to be valid:
📌The donor must intend to give the gift.
📌The donor must deliver the property.
📌The donee must accept the gift during the donor’s lifetime.
As affirmed in George William Kalule v Norah Nassozi & Anor, Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2014 and Oyet & Anor v Abwola, H.C.C.A No. 0068 of 2016.
Key Findings
The court rejected the Appellant’s claim that the suit land belonged to Abdalla Ibrahim Lakwar due to insufficient evidence of ownership, such as a lease or valid license.
Evidence demonstrated that Hajati Zamzam Ibrahim occupied the suit land for over 12 years before the 1995 Constitution came into force, making her a bona fide occupant.
The purported will/gift inter vivos document dated 12th June 1999 was invalid, as it was neither authored by Hajati Zamzam Ibrahim nor met the legal requirements of a valid gift inter vivos.
Conclusion
The court held that Hajati Zamzam Ibrahim was the bona fide occupant of the suit land, thereby conferring her possessory title. However, the purported gift to the Respondents lacked legal validity. Therefore, the Respondents' claim under the alleged will or gift inter vivos failed, but their rights as successors to Hajati's possessory title were upheld.
Legal Implications:
This case highlights the importance of documented evidence in land ownership disputes, including valid leases, licenses, and clear conveyance records.
Bona fide occupancy rights remain paramount under Uganda's legal framework, protecting individuals with long-standing possession against eviction, even in the absence of formal land titles.
Practical Recommendations
Landowners and occupants should ensure proper documentation of land transactions, including leases, licenses, and receipts.
Legal practitioners should emphasize the historical evolution of land law and its implications when addressing disputes involving Crown or Public Land.
Individuals claiming land through inheritance or gift must provide clear evidence of ownership transfer, including the donor's intent, delivery, and acceptance by the donee.
By
Waboga David
Read the full case below
.jpg)
Comments