[2022] UGHCLD 150

### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA, AT KAMPALA

#### (LAND DIVISION}

## cIvIL APPEAL No. 53 of 2O2O

(Aristng lrom Clul! Suit NO, 2404 OF 2OOA of the Chtet Maglstrqte's Coura @t Mengo)

#### I LUTWAMA JOSEPH

2 SULAITI SEBUNYA . APPELLANTS

#### I/ERSUS

NABANJA EVA R. ESPONDENTS

## Before: La.du Justlce Alexandrq. Nkonqe

#### JUDGMENT:

## Introductlon:

The appellants are children of the late Erisa Kibuuka. They filed the main suit in the chief Magistrate,s court Mengo, against their Efralce Nalfuka and Eva Nabbanja (respondent) for recovery of kibanja at Masanafu Bukulugi zonci an eviction ordcr against the respondent and her agents, employees and servants from thc suit land; general damages; costs of suit.

They claimed that Nanfuka Efrance had without their consent sold to the respondent in 2004, a ktbanja located at Masanafu in which they got beneficial interest and it was done without their consent.

Around the time the proceedings were ongoing howcver, Nalfuka had passed on. It was the appellants' contention that as a beneficiary their late sister Nanfuka had already obtained her share of the estate of the late Erisa Kibuuka, that is, land at Nabiyaji Kyaggwe County, Mukono district and had no interest in the kibania at Masanafu.


That the said kibanja at Masanafu belonged to Erisa Kibuuka who had inherited it from his father Yusufu Mukasa. Erisa Kibuuka had acquired property jointly with his brother Matthias Kironde from their late father, Yusufu Mukasa.

As per Erias Kibuuka's will, he had bequeathed the *kibanja* to his son Buwembo Festo. Upon his death however, his brother Matthias Kironde had attempted to grab the suit land belonging to his brother, instituted the Civil Suit No. 587 of 2002 against the plaintiffs but lost the case.

It was also not disputed that after the death of Buwembo Festo, the plaintiffs had secured a grant of the letters of administration to manage his estate. They filed the suit therefore to challenge the sale transaction between the respondent and the late Efrance Nanfuka.

At the trial, Efrance Nanfuka on her part contended that she had been gifted with the kibanja by 10 her grandfather Yusuf Mukasa and had occupied it until the time she sold it to Nabbanja. According to her the *kibanja* did not form part of estate of the late Erisa Kibuuka as alleged.

The respondent, Nabbanja denied any knowledge of the earlier Civil Suit No. 587 of 2002, and claimed to be a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of any defect in title of the said

15 kibanja.

$\bullet$

$\mathsf{S}$

In her counterclaim, she sought for a permanent injunction to issue against the plaintiffs/counter defendants; general and special damages; interest and costs of the suit.

At the trial, two issues were raised:

## 1. Whether the plaintiffs have a lawful claim over the kibanja;

#### 20 Remedies.

The trial court in its judgment made the following orders:

- 1) That the defendant is the lawful owner of the kibanja located at Masanafu measuring 68 by 100 formerly of Nanfuka Efrance; - 2) A permanent injunction to issue against the plaintiffs, their assignees and agents not to trespass on the said the kibanja or interfere with the defendants/counter defendant's enjoyment of the kibanja at Masanafu measuring 68 by 100 feet. - 3) General damages of Uqx 2,500,000/= to the defendant/ counterclaimant; costs. - Dissatisfied with the decision the plaintiffs filed this appeal, raising the following grounds: 30 - 1. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact when she failed to properly evaluate the evidence on record when she held that the appellants do not have any

Julan

lawful interest in the suit kibanja located at Masanafu village, Bukuluji Zone, thus arriving at an erroneous conclusion;

- 2. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact when she failed to evaluate the proceedings and judgment on a previous suit (Civil Suit No. 587 of 2002) whereby the same court had made a decision giving the said piece of land to the appellants; - 3. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact when she held that the suit kibanja was given to Nanfuka by the late Yusufu Mukasa without any valid document or gift deed thereby reaching an erroneous decision.

### **Representation:**

At the trial, the appellants were represented by *M/s Musoke Suleman & Co. Advocates*. The respondent on her part was represented by *M/s Kajeke & Co. Advocates* and later on by *M/s* **Atigo & Co. Advocates** who filed a notice of instructions on 28^th August, 2020.

Counsel Byabakama Blast from the said firm acknowledged receipt of service for the respondent 15 but did not file any reply.

#### Consideration of the issues:

Since the three grounds are interrelated, I will deal with them jointly.

This being a first appeal, court is under an obligation to subject the evidence presented at trial to a fresh and exhaustive scrutiny and to a re-appraisal before coming to its own conclusion on 20 issues of fact as well as of law.

It must also make due allowance for the fact that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses and so ought to weigh the conflicting evidence before drawing its own inference.

That duty as highlighted above is well explained in the case of: Father Nanensio Begumisa and

three others vs Eric Tiberaga SCCA 17 OF 2000 [2004] KLRA 236, cited with approval in 25 Ovoya Poli vs Wakunga Civil Appeal No. 0013 OF 2014.

Furthermore, section 102 of the Evidence Act places the burden of proof on a party who would fail if no evidence at all were given by either party.

Counsel for the appellants in his submission on these grounds argued that court came to the wrong conclusion in declaring that that the appellants have no lawful interest in the suit *kibanja*. 30 According to him there was abundant evidence at the trial that proved that the appellants had customary tenure interest having acquired the land from their father, the late Erisa Kibuuka.

$\mathsf{S}$

$\bullet$ $\cdot$

He referred to the provisions of artlcle 273 oj the Constltution under which customary tenure is duly recognized as one ofthe four tenure systems. By virtue of sectlon 3(7) of the Land Act, Cap. 227, customa.ry tenure is defined as a form of tenure applicabte to a specific area of land and a specific description or class of persons; governcd by rules gcnerally accepted as binding alld authoritative by the class of persons to which it applies.

He also referred to an earlier suit filed vide: Clull Szlt .iVo. 5a7 oJ 2OO2 before Mengo court, filed by Mathias Kironde, their paternal uncle, against the Administrator General against them as children ofthe late Erisa Kibuuka. The two appellants wcrc thc 2nd and 3rtr defendants in that suit. lt was the appellants' contention that the suit had determined the interests of the appellants.

That upon conclusion of Ciull Sult.lllo. 587 oJ 2OO2, the appellants were shocked to see the 1s respondent starting to construct on the suit land, claiming to have bought it from the late Nanfuka Efrance, and continued to do so despite thcir warning to hcr.

Counsel further submitted that under the Constitution of Uganda and the Judicature Act, courts of law are enjoined to be consistent in their decisions. Once judgment is delivered a paJty who is dissatisfied has got a right to appeal. 15

That it was therefore procedurally wrong for the trial magistrate to ignore the decision in the previous suit: Clull Sult JYo. 5a7 oJ 2OO2, from the s€une court. In dealing with this appeat, I find it therefore necessary to compare the prayers sought and the orders which were granted by

the respective trial courts. 20

## Ciuil Suit .lvo. 587 of 2OO2: Mathio.s Kironde as Adrnlnistrotor Generq.l & 3 others:

It was not in contention that the disputed land originally belonged to the late Yusufu Mukasa, father to both Mathias Kironde and Erisa Kibuuka, the father to the appellants. The appellants claimed that Matthias Kironde attempted to grab the kibanja at Masanafu land belonging to their father's estate, which originally belonged to Yusufu Mukasa.

He claimed in that suit that his brother, Erisa Kibuuka had no developments on that land, having disposed ofthe share he obtained upon the death of their father in 1967. His family (defendants in that suit) could not therefore lay any claim on the same.

Accordingly, the orders sought in this suit wcre: a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from euicting the plaintiff (Kironde) from his land and against the 2nd-4th defendants from trespassing on the plaintiffs kibanja; a declaration that the suit kibanja belonged to the plaintiff; damages qnd costs. 30

The main issue during the trial rotated around ownership of the disputed kibonTa. However as noted by court, the actual size/area of the entire kibanja in dispute was not known'

court in its judgment dated 4th November, 2oo5 dismissed the suit, after the finding that Mathias Kironde had failed to prove that the land had been gifted to him by his father. It was noted by court that Kibuuka had a house on lhe kibanja at Masanafu. His children used to till on that

land and that no proof had been provided to show that Kibuuka had sold off his share.

That the children of Kibuuka had kept using the land even after their father's death and were only prevented from using it after the death of Buwembo when Kironde tried to claim the entire kibanja, and that they were therefore entitled to their father's property at Masanafu'

That the 2nd-4rh defendlants had therefore proved their claim of interest in the suit kibanja bolh through David Buwembo and Erisa Kibuuka and that as administrators of the estate of the late of David Buwembo were entitled to claim Buwembo's share out of the kibanja at Masanafu. 10

Accordingly, Kironde having got his share out of Yusufu Mukasa's kibanja al Masanafu had no right to interfere with Erisa Kibuuka's share; the children of Erisa Kibuuka were entitled to their

father's property left at Masanafu in accordance with the law on succession; and were not therefore trespassers on that land. 15

counsel for the appellants, point was that court orders once issued are meant to be consistent and a party dissatisfied with the d.ecision has got a dght of appeal. That it was therefore procedurally wrong for the tdal court to have ignored the above decision by which the appellants' interest in the disputed land had been recognized by the court'

It is to be noted that while acknowledging the 2-4th defendants as administrators of the estate of David Buwembo and therefore entitled to claim David Buwembo's share out of the kibanjawF.ich Erisa Kibuuka left at Masanafu, the court however made no distinction as to what each beneficiary under Kibuuka's estate was entitled to.

# ²⁵ Clull Sul No. 24O4 of 20 : Lutu)dmq Joseph & Anor us Nabbo,nla Daq

In the subsequent suit: ciuit sult lvo. 2404 ol2OOa (the subject ofthis appcal), the 2nd and ³ defendants (appellants) sought for the following orders:

- 7. tecotory ol klbo,',.,(r located at Mo.so,'t,df,l Bukuluil zone; - 2. d eolctlo^ order algo.lnst the 7n delendant and her age^ts, efltttlogees o'rd serr',o'nts Iro^ the sult lo',rd; - 30

- 3. ge^etdl do;,?loges; a^d. - 4. costs oJ the sult.

Thc trial coufi in its judgment datcd srh March, 2020 madc the orders below

5 .}"6

- 1. That the defendant (respondent) is the lawful owner of the kibanja located at Masanafu measuring 68 by 100 formerly of Nanfuka Efrance; - 2. A permanent injunction to issue against the plaintiffs, their assignees and agents not to trespass on the said the kibanja or interfere with the defendants/counter defendant's enjoyment of the kibanja at Masanafu measuring 68 by 100 feet; - 3. General damages of Ugx 2,500,000/= to the defendant/ counterclaimant; - 4. Costs of the suit.

The trial court in this case ruled that the respondent, Nabbanja had duly acquired a portion of land at Masanafu, measuring $68ft \times 100 ft$ . From the reading of the judgment in the earlier suit there was nothing in that judgment which would have prevented the trial court from arriving at those conclusions.

It is worth noting that during the trial, Nabbanja relied on the sale agreement dated 4^th April, 2004 between her and the late Nanfuka Efrance to prove that she had paid for the kibanja, at a total purchase sum of *Ugx5,000,000/=*.

According to that document, Nanfuka had indicated that the late Yusufu Mukasa her paternal grandfather had given her that kibanja in 1966. 20

The trial court under Civil Suit No. 2404 of 2008 had this to say:

The said Nanfuka as per the evidence of Dw2 which is unrebutted was in possession of this kibanja at all times cultivating it since 1986 when the defendant got to know her, uninterrupted by her father Erisa Kibuuka and also her brother Buwembo before his death... I do note that Dw1 said that the land was for Kibuuka and on leaving Masanafu for Kyaggwe the kibanja was given by Yusufu Mukasa to Nanfuka to use it since she had come from a broken marriage.

This means that Yusufu Mukasa still owned the kibanja and still had the right to it thus giving it to Nanfuka; and the father and the brother the heir were aware that is why they did not interfere with the possession and utilization of the same by Nanfuka.

In reaching that conclusion court also had to consider the validity of the will **PExh 3**, dated 24^th October, 1968, as well as the purported minutes of the family meeting: **PExh4**, presented by the $1^st$ plaintiff/appellant at the trial.

In love of

$\mathsf{S}$

The reasons and importance of a testator appending a signature to the will and attesting to his/her will, which are mandatory requirements by virtue of section 50 oJ the Successlon Act are self- explanatory and need no elaboration.

5 The trial court, just like in the previous court decision had rejected the said will for the reason that other than mentioning the children and property ofthe deceased, neither had it been signed by the testator nor attested by any witnesses.

Court in the earlier suit found, rightly so, that since there was no valid will no bequests could have been validly made. The document daled 24b October, 1968 purported to be the will of Kibuuka and which had been the basis of the distribution of his estate had therefore been disregarded by that court.

To support that position, Ptu2, Ms Alice Nakibuuka an elder a]1d aunt to the plaintiffs/appellants during the trial told court that the late Kibuuka had died intcstate, an assertion which however contradicted PI,I's statement that his father had left a will.

Par-I during the trial which is the subject of this appeal therefore sought to reintroduce and rely on a will that had been discarded as invalid in an earlier trial while at the same time seeking to enforce a judgment that had rejected the will.

Furthermore, regarding the authenticity of the minutes at which such distribution had purportedly been made in 1986, ProI claimed that under the said distribution Buwembo who had been appointed heir to the late Kibuuka had been given the kibanja at Masanafu. Their sister

Nanfuka had got land at Nabiyaji, Mukono, but not the suit kibanja at Masanafu which she later on sold to the respondent. 20

The minutes of the meeting however had not been tendered in court and court gave its reasons why. Not least was the fact tbat Pul himself never signed as one of those who had attended the meeting.

But secondly, that the author of those minutes never attended court to confirm that he had recorded those minutes; confirm what had tralspired in that meeting; and that the distribution was done as proposed. 25

This is what court had to say in the previous suit (page 13):

30 The cld.lr,tr thdt Ddtld. Buwernbo rl,as helr ol ErTsd Kibl.luk.r dpped.rs ,lot to be in dispute but I noted thqt Dtt3 d.ld not l,!'form court what he bo.sed. o^ to sau that Erisa Kibuuka's kibd.nig dnd house thereon dt Masdno.fu tp<ts patssed. on to his heir and like I hdue earlier on D,oi'rted out. the document on uhich DtpT a d Dtp2 ate reluing to cl@im that Erisa Klbuukd.'s klbanla and the house Erisa Kibuuka lnherlted frorn Yusufu Mukasa uas qiven to David

Buuernbo and th-e- houpg-lhq!\_El.qs\*r1o,C- byi& 91 !@blbglrls pss gLtq .ta Alds Nakqndue: 7s d. document uthlch court is ^ot doind to @ttach ueloht. for reasons d.lread.u ^glw 4, le- ltph a9! s ml ^ e ).

c En the d.bote court Ji,,,ds thot the 2"d to 4t^ defenddnts' ctol,'t that Erisa Klb'auk.,.'s klb(rnJ(r dt Mo,so,r',@fu u)as gitEn to Da old. Buuembo hos not been prooed on d. bdlaflce ol piobd.billtles.

That alone confirmed that there was no valid document to show that distribution was done. It was enough to prove that the Masanafu property did actually form part of the estate of Kibuuka which remained undistributed following his demise. Narfuka was one of the beneficiaries under that estate.

The above decision which was nevcr discharged, also indicates that without a proper record of minutes or evidence of distribution and indeed without letters of administration over Kibuuka's estate, no one could claim with certainty that the late Nanfuka had no share in the Masanafu estate. What remained to be resolved was whether the portion she sold to the respondent was

rightfully hers. 15

The trial court therefore need not have referred to minutes whose authenticity had not been established and which in any case had already been disregarded by the earlier court. In light of the above as highlighted, the attendance and participatiot by Pus2 in the said distribution as claimed was therefore of no consequence given the fact that the author of the minutes was not

summoned to attend court during the trial to confirm the authenticity of the document which the appellants intended to rely on. 20

ln a bid to enforce their rights accruing under the former suit not only did the appellants seek to rely on a will that had already been disregarded by the earlier decision of court but also sought to smuggle in a record of the meeting that they had failed to exhibit or prove before the same court.

In seeking to selectively apply portions of the judgment which favoured them and ignoring those key aspects which did not suit them, the appellants did not therefore come to court with clean hands.

ns it were, since Kibuuka had left no valid will, the laws governing intestacy were applicable. No 30 valid distribution could have been made without letters of administration over Kibuuka's estate. section l8O o, the Succession . Act provides that aI administrator of the estate of a deceased person is his or her legal representative for all purposes, and as such all the property of the deceased person vests in him or her.

ln sectlon 25 all property in an intcstate devolves upon the personal representative of the deceased, as trustee for all the persons entitled to the property. Any dealing with the land without prior authority of court would therefore amount to intermeddling with the estate, contrary to section 268 ol the sa.me Act,

5 All in all, in both cases there was failure to distinguish between what rightfully belonged to Kibuuka's estate and what belonged to Buwembo's estate and to all other beneficiaries under each estate and it would be wrong to assume that upon Kibuuka's demise all his property automatically became that of his heir, Buwembo.

The issues as raised in the suit under which this appea.l arises presented a rather different cause of action since the focus was on a specific area which Nanfuka had sold to the respondent. It called for court to decide the nature of the interest she held in respect to that specific portion of the land which she disposed of. 10

## Whether or not the aDpellants held custotn,q,ru ri,hts oaer the la,'rd:

The appellants claimed that there was abundant evidence at the trial that they had customary tenure interest having acquired the land from their father, Drisa Kibuuka alrd no evidence had been presented at the trial to prove that the sttit kibanja was given to Nanfuka. According to them therefore, the purported purchase by Nabbanja had been invalid. 15

DnrI, Nabbanja Eva on her part contended that the total purchase amount for l}:,e kibanjo lh.at she had bought was a sum of Ugx 5,OOO,OOO/=. She and Nanfuka had on 4th Aprrl,2OO4 executed an agreement for tbe kibanja measuring 68x 1OOfi, witnessed by Kironde an uncle to to Nanfuka and one Kiwanuka TWaibu.

According to Nanfuka, the suit kibcrnja had been given to her as a gift by her grandfather Yusufu Mukasa during his life time. She confirmed to court that Narfuka had been utilising the land after her failed marriage.

That Nanfuka's son, Godfrey Batwerinde started constructing a house for his mother Nanfuka which he however did not complete. It was demolished by Nanfuka's brothers after they had secured the court order in the earlier suit. To prove her point, she tendered in DE7 (a) and (b) : photos showing the houses which had been demolished. 25

Dnt7, Aida Nabatanzi aged 95, the mother of the late Nanfuka confirmed that her daughter got her share from her grardfather Yusufu Mukasa. That Nanfuka had been staying with her grandfather at the time. It was her evidence however that by the time Kibuuka died he had no kibanja at Masanafu which claim the appellants had however refuted. 30

In general terms, customary rules play a pivotal role in the laws of succession and inheritance. It is accorded recognition for as long as it is not repugnant to the written laws. Under section 7(l) ol the Land Act, Cap. 227 cwstomary tenure is defined as a system of lald tenure regulated by the customaqr rules limited in their operation to a particular class of persons.

A kibanja holding is a form of a customary larrd tcnure recognised within the Buganda region according to the long establishcd rules developed along Kiganda customs. Such tenure must however be proved. (. I(cmpala Dlstrlct La.nd Board. & George Mutqle os. Ve,l.o,nslo Babwegala & Ors (SCCA 2/O7),).

Proof entails for example long occupation, recognition by the owner of the reversion or landlord (ald vice versa) and payment of ground in the case of land in Buganda, and in some instances payment of a type of land tax or rent.

- It was also the appellants' contention that the Iate Nanfuka who sold the kibanja in dispute to the respondent did not show that the late Yusufu Mukasa, their grandfather had donated the kibanja to her. Indeed as correctly pointed out, there was no documentary proof that Nanfuka got the gift of the kibanja {rolx] her grandfather. 15 - The law does not ordinarily recognize a vcrbal gift of 1and. Donation of land is often characterized by a deed. In equity, a gift is only complete as soon as the donor has done everything within his/her control which are neccssary for him to completc the title. 20

In determining whether the deceased created a glft interuiuos in respect of the disputed land, court has to among others ascertain the intention ofthe donor and then ascertain whether formal

requirements of the method of disposition which he attcmpted make have been satisfied. (Re,. Iv4ssozl qnd qnor us l(alule HCCA 2012/5). 25

It comes out clearly from Pw2's evidence k)age 16 of the record of proceedings) that prior to his death the late Yusufu Mukasa had given some donation to the late Nanfuka. The nature and details of such donation could not however be established.

But going by the judgment in thc earlier suit, and in corroboration of that assertion, Kironde the plaintiff in that suit, in his pleadings stated clearly that he and the widow of Yusufu Mukasa had given part of the kibanja al Masanafu to Nanfuka in 1989, beforc that suit was filed. 30

The appellants who were parties neither challengcd that allegation nor did they challenge Nanfuka's occupation ofthe kibanja before she disposed it off. This goes to conlirm that Nanfuka

35 had duly received her kibanja wlnidn she took possession of, and occupied as early as 1989. The

UJ"Pd

evidence adduced at trial did not suggest that Nanfuka occupied or sold of the erflire kibanja at Masanafu, but only a portion of that land which she had occupied and utilized for years without arry interruption.

7n Kampdlq Dtstrlct Land Board. &, Another vers-us NqtTona.l Houslag a d const'uctlon Corporatlon Cluil Appeal No. 2 oJ 2OO4, il was held that the respondent who had been in possession of the suit land for a long time and utilized it was entitled to have its interest recognLed and protected.

As noted by the trial court, Nanfuka had been utilizing the kibanja even when her father and Buwembo his heir were still alive. This court cannot fault the trial court's well-considered conclusion that since Nalfuka had not been made party to that earlier suit, the kibanja s}]Le occupied at the time did not constitute part of the disputed land in that suit.

The appellants do not explain how else Nanfuka had been allowed to enter, stay and utilDe that kibanja as early as 1989 without the knowledge and consent or acquiescence of the original owners.

15 That even after the death of Erisa Kibuuka, his son and heir Buwembo, did not challenge or interfere with Nanfuka's possession, occupation and utilization of that land. In a nutshell, the appellants in that sense could not satisfy court that what Nanfuka had sold to Nabbanja belonged to the estate of Buwembo or Kibuuka before him.

As also noted by the lower courts, the problem also stemmed from the appellants' failure to draw 20 a clear distinction between the three estates: for the late Yusufu Mukasa, the origina.l owner of l:ne kibanja; the estate of Erisa Kibuuka, who was his son and heir and Pesto Buwembo, who was Kibuuka s son and heir.

Court noted that out of the three, only the estate of Buwembo had administrators. The appellants as the administrators of Buwembo's estate had secured a grant as early as 2001 but never filed any inventory as required by law, to show how that estate had been distributed and help this court to resolve the dispute,

As also noted by the court, there was also uncertainty about the size of the kibanjo that Erisa Kibuuka and Buwembo had successively inherited which court duly recognized in the 2002 suit a:rd the correlation with lhe kibanja which was sold to Nabbanja, measuring 68fr x 10ofi. PtD2

30 told court that the total area was about 5 acres, though she did not appear certain. PurI referred to an area almost double that size.

11, u,"Vs

This can only mean that in the event that the disputed kibcryb constituted part of Kibuuka's estate, Nanfuka had sold off to Nabbanja oriy 68fi x 1oofi, o:ul of the entire Masanafu estate which was estimated by the witnesses as measuring 5-10 acres.

This could well have been considered to be her entitlement if distribution had been done. ln absence of a survey report one could not also rule out the possibility that the kibanja sold to Nabbanja was outside the scope of the disputed land.

^Iwish also to add that the appellants were not the administrators oftheir father's estate ald had no authority to deal with the same without letters of administration. Just like Nanfuka they were mere beneficiaries entitled to equa.l shares under that estate.

While therefore the appellants managed to provc that the late father had. a kibanja which they recovered from Kironde as per 2OO2 suit, they failed to prove that the late Nar]fuka's portion constituted part of Buwembo's estate which they were authorized by court to administer. 10

The appellants had failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that Buwembo owned the entire kibanja and, that they have any lau"ful interest in the disputed, kibanjawhich at the material time was in possession of and was utilized by Nanfuka and later sold to the respondent.

Al1 in atl, and in reply to issues 7, 2, and 3, the lcarned trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence on record and carefully took into consideration the proceedings and judgment of the previous suit (Ciutl Sult lVo. 587 o! 2OO2 before arriving at the finding and correct conclusion that the appellants did not have any lawful interest in the suit kibania located at Masanafu village, Bukuluji Zone, measuring 68f. x 10O f..

This appeal must therefore fail. The judgment of the trial court is upheld. Since the respondent did not file any reply, no award of costs is granted in respect to this appeal.

Alexqndra Nkorrge Ru

25 Judge

&h August, 2022

),Lu\*l b gr',Ull, I-l t YoqA