When a party fails to file submissions, the opposing party should formally notify the Registrar and request dismissal or a decision based on available records. High Court at Kabale Rules.

Facts

The respondent, Mary Tibita, initiated a suit in the lower court seeking a declaration that the appellant, Annah Tuhebwa, was a trespasser on the suit property, a permanent injunction, general damages, special damages, interest, and costs. The parties are members of the same family. Mary Tibita is the widow of the late Charles Byekwaso, who died intestate. Annah Tuhebwa is the daughter of Mrs. Tereza Byekwaso, the deceased's second wife.

Mary Tibita claimed that the deceased gifted her two pieces of land in Kashaki and Rugoma, Bubaare sub-county, Rubanda district, in 2007, which she had used without interference. After the deceased's death, his will, dated June 21, 2017, stipulated that these properties would remain under Mary Tibita's control and use until her death, then be transmitted to her two sons. Mary Tibita accused Annah Tuhebwa of trespassing on May 3, 2019, and maliciously damaging property by cutting trees, leading to a police report (SD Ref 04/12/5/2019).

Annah Tuhebwa denied trespass, asserting that the suit property was never the deceased's, but rather a marriage gift to her mother from her late father-in-law, Macumu, and had been in her mother's possession since the 1960s. She contended that the land was not part of the deceased's estate and that she was sent to cut trees on the land at Butare.

Legal Representation

In the High Court appeal, the appellant, Annah Tuhebwa, was represented by M/S Mujurizi, Arinaitwe, and Byamukama Advocates. The respondent, Mary Tibita, was represented by M/S Justus Muhangi and Co. Advocates.

Submissions

No substantive submissions were filed by either party before this Court on appeal.

The Appellant failed to comply with the court-directed briefing schedule. No submissions were received by the due date of 18 March 2026. The Respondent similarly filed no submissions.

Grounds of appeal as filed by the Appellant on 27 April 2023 were;

1. The learned Trial Magistrate erred in law and in fact when she held that the Respondent is the lawful owner of the suit land.

2. The learned Trial Magistrate erred in law and fact when she failed to properly evaluate the evidence as a whole, arriving at a wrong conclusion that the Appellant trespassed on the suit land.

Court's Findings

Lower Court Findings

The learned Magistrate found in favor of Mary Tibita, concluding that she had cultivated the land since 2007, despite a lack of evidence on how she acquired this right. The Magistrate noted Annah Tuhebwa's testimony that she last cultivated the land in 2000 and had not disturbed Mary Tibita's use for 12 years until she cut trees. The Magistrate declared Mary Tibita the owner of the suit land. Regarding trespass, the Magistrate found that Annah Tuhebwa, by her own admission, trespassed when she cut trees for her mother and engaged in other acts like harvesting sweet potatoes and throwing stones without Mary Tibita's authority.

High Court Findings

The High Court primarily dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to file submissions. The court cited Abwongoto and 4 others v Atiang Christine Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2023, which held that failure to file submissions fatally prejudices an appeal, treating it as abandoned. The court also referenced Karurie v Kamau, Civil Appeal E134 of 2021, 2025 KECA 366, KLR, affirming the court's power to conduct a "clean-up exercise" for abandoned cases. The court emphasized that an appeal can only be determined upon parties arguing the grounds framed.

The High Court also addressed a residual issue concerning the correct procedure when a party fails to file submissions. If the appellant fails, the respondent should write to the Registrar, noting the failure and requesting dismissal, serving a copy to the appellant. If the respondent defaults, the appeal is not prejudiced, and the appellant should similarly write to the Registrar requesting a decision based on the court record.

Furthermore, the High Court noted that the appeal would have failed for other reasons, specifically citing the Limitation Act, Cap 290. The evidence showed that the appellant sat on her claim for ownership for more than 12 years, which would benefit the respondent through adverse ownership. Section 5 of the Limitation Act states that no action to recover land shall be brought after 12 years from the date the right of action accrued.

The court also considered the deceased's will and Section 29(1) of the Succession Act, Cap 268, which limits a testator's right to dispose of their own property. Challenges to bequests, as per Section 240(1) and 262(1) of the Succession Act, should be brought through a regular suit in a competent court, a procedure the appellant failed to follow.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the appeal with prejudice due to the appellant's failure to comply with the briefing schedule and file submissions. The court also indicated that the appeal would have failed on substantive grounds related to the Limitation Act and the Succession Act.

Read more

turyahebwa v tibita.pdf

Download PDF • 254KB

Key Takeaways

1. Failure to file submissions within the stipulated deadlines can lead to the dismissal of an appeal, as such non-compliance is considered a fatal procedural defect, rendering the appeal abandoned.

2. When a party fails to file submissions, the opposing party should formally notify the Registrar and request dismissal or a decision based on available records, ensuring proper service to the defaulting party.

3. Claims to land ownership can be extinguished by statutory limitation periods. Prolonged inaction (e.g., 12 years) by a claimant can result in the loss of their right to recover land, benefiting the party in possession.

4. Disputes regarding bequests in a will must be formally challenged through a regular suit in a competent court, following the procedures outlined in the Succession Act. Failure to do so can result in the loss of such rights.