[2019] UGSC 18

[2019] UGSC 18

The dissenting Justice found that the Supreme Court's majority judgment in SCCA No. 8 of 2014 was contrary to law and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The respondent's entitlement to land was not properly defined by size or boundary, and the burden of proof regarding the extent of land and alleged purchases from Bibanja holders was wrongly shifted to the applicants. The respondent failed to prove acquisition of land beyond what was formerly occupied by Mukirane, and the courts erred in granting him more land than he claimed. The orders to transfer registered land to the respondent without proof of consideration or proper legal basis contravened statutory provisions and constitutional...

Citation
[2019] UGSC 18
Parties
Applicant: Isaya Kalya; Applicant: Geofrey Katooro; Applicant: Rabwoni Johnson; Respondent: Moses Macekenyu Ikagobya
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
29 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
application allowed (dissenting opinion)
Legal Topics
Land Ownership Disputes, Customary Tenure, Burden of Proof, Registration of Titles, Review of Judgments
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Land Ownership Disputes Customary Tenure Burden of Proof Registration of Titles Review of Judgments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isaya Kalya

Applicant

Geofrey Katooro

Applicant

Rabwoni Johnson

Applicant

Moses Macekenyu Ikagobya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2014 was contrary to law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
  2. 2 Whether the decree in relation to the land is unenforceable due to lack of definition, description, size, and boundary.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent could be both a lawful and bonafide occupant on the same land.

Ratio Decidendi

The dissenting Justice found that the Supreme Court's majority judgment in SCCA No. 8 of 2014 was contrary to law and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The respondent's entitlement to land was not properly defined by size or boundary, and the burden of proof regarding the extent of land and alleged purchases from Bibanja holders was wrongly shifted to the applicants. The respondent failed to prove acquisition of land beyond what was formerly occupied by Mukirane, and the courts erred in granting him more land than he claimed. The orders to transfer registered land to the respondent without proof of consideration or proper legal basis contravened statutory provisions and constitutional...

Court Disposition

application allowed (dissenting opinion)

Orders

  • The Supreme Court's judgment in SCCA No. 8 of 2014 be recalled.
  • The judgment and orders of the Court of Appeal be reinstated.