[2009] UGHC 37

[2009] UGHC 37

The appellate court found that the trial magistrate erred in law and fact by holding that the appellant only bought the stores and not the land, given that the stores were permanent fixtures and thus part of the land under the doctrine of quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit. The evidence did not show that Lint...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] UGHC 37
Parties
Appellant: Justine Okengo; Respondent: Natali Abia; Respondent: Leo Okidi; Respondent: Opira Vincent; Respondent: Francis Omoya; Respondent: Ochan Bosco
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil App. No.34 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Magistrate's Court
Outcome
appeal allowed; judgment of lower court set aside; retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Fixtures and Chattels, Ownership of Land, Retrial Procedure, Locus in Quo, Burden of Proof
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Fixtures and Chattels Ownership of Land Retrial Procedure Locus in Quo Burden of Proof

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Justine Okengo

Appellant

Natali Abia

Respondent

Leo Okidi

Respondent

Opira Vincent

Respondent

Francis Omoya

Respondent

Ochan Bosco

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Magistrate's Court

  1. 1 Whether the store formed part of the land in dispute.
  2. 2 Whether Lint Marketing Board had legal capacity to sell the suit land.
  3. 3 Whether the trial magistrate erred by not visiting the locus in quo.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the trial magistrate erred in law and fact by holding that the appellant only bought the stores and not the land, given that the stores were permanent fixtures and thus part of the land under the doctrine of quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit. The evidence did not show that Lint Marketing Board was a squatter or that it constructed temporary structures; thus, it had the capacity to sell both the stores and the land. The trial magistrate further erred by failing to visit the locus in quo, which was crucial for determining the actual boundaries and extent of the disputed land. This omission deprived the court of essential evidence and constituted a...

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; judgment of lower court set aside; retrial ordered

Orders

  • Judgment of the Chief Magistrate's Court delivered on 11.11.2004 in Civil Suit No. MK 62 of 2001 is set aside.
  • A retrial of the suit is ordered before the Chief Magistrate's Court with competent jurisdiction.