[2009] UGCA 49

[2009] UGCA 49

The Court of Appeal found that the affidavit relied upon to prove customary marriage was inadmissible under section 84 of the Evidence Act and section 67 of the Advocates Act. However, oral evidence established that the first appellant and first respondent were married under Kikiga custom. The Court held that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] UGCA 49
Parties
Appellant: Engineer Ephraim Turinawe; Appellant: Dewark Limited; Respondent: Molly Kyalikunda Turinawe; Respondent: Fiona Turinawe; Respondent: Bernes Ankundwa; Respondent: Robin Turinawe; Respondent: Davis Turinawe
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal_allowed
Legal Topics
Customary Marriage, Family Property, Land Sale Consent, Registration of Titles, Equitable Interest, Contractual Breach
Source Language
en
Land and Property Family and Children Customary Marriage Family Property Land Sale Consent Registration of Titles Equitable Interest Contractual Breach

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Engineer Ephraim Turinawe

Appellant

Dewark Limited

Appellant

Molly Kyalikunda Turinawe

Respondent

Fiona Turinawe

Respondent

Bernes Ankundwa

Respondent

Robin Turinawe

Respondent

Davis Turinawe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the first appellant and first respondent were spouses under customary law.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent contributed to the purchase of the suit property.
  3. 3 Whether the suit property was family property requiring consent of spouse and children before sale.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the affidavit relied upon to prove customary marriage was inadmissible under section 84 of the Evidence Act and section 67 of the Advocates Act. However, oral evidence established that the first appellant and first respondent were married under Kikiga custom. The Court held that the suit property, although registered in the first appellant's name, was paid for by Elizabeth Kabutiti, who acquired an equitable interest. The property did not become family property merely by registration in the appellant's name. The respondents were strangers to the contract between the appellant and KCC and could not challenge its breach. The trial judge erred in applying the...

Court Disposition

appeal_allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed with costs to the appellants in this Court and below.
  • The orders of the High Court are set aside.