[2023] UGHCLD 104

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT GULU CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2020

(ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO. 009 OF 2013, CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT OF KITGUM HOLDEN AT PATONGO)

OWON AKWILINO OKONGO..................................

### **VERSUS**

### $15$ 1. OMARA YOSAM 2. OMORO LUPUAMOI.................................... ......................................

### BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE GEORGE OKELLO

$\mathsf{S}$

$10$

### JUDGMENT

This is an appeal from the Judgment and Decree of His Worship Oji Phillips, the then Magistrate Grade One of Patongo Magistrates Court, given on 14^th February, 2020, in Civil Suit 25 No. 009 of 2013, a land matter.

The Appellant sued the Respondents jointly and severally claiming that the Respondents trespassed on approximately ten (10) acres of customary land situate at Tee- Oryang village, Lumoi Parish, Omiya- Pachwa Sub-County, Agago District. The

HhAddu.

- Appellant sought to be declared the lawful customary owner of $5$ the suit land. He also sought for a permanent injunction, general and punitive damages, mesne profits, interests and costs. - $10$ The Respondents denied the claim and averred that they have never gained possession of the alleged land. The Respondents contended that they live in different villages from the Appellant and have separate land. The Respondents also averred that their forefathers acquired land located in Lumoi central village on which the Respondents have lived without any adverse $15$ claim. The Respondents prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs. - The parties testified and called witnesses, consequent on which the trial court visited the locus in quo. In his Judgment, the trial 20 Court held and declared the Respondents to be the owners of the suit land, and that the Appellant lacks valid claim. The court ordered for the eviction of the Appellant, his son, a daughter, a Nephew, and three other persons whom the trial Court found had entered on a portion of the suit land when the dispute was 25 pending in court. The trial Magistrate therefore dismissed the suit, with costs. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant lodged this appeal.

Hadoan

$\mathbf{2}$

#### **Grounds of Appeal** $\mathsf{S}$

1. The Learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact when he failed to find that the Appellant is the lawful customary owner of the suit land thereby arriving at a wrong decision.

$10$

- 2. The learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact when he held that the Appellant contradicted the evidence of his witnesses as to the location of the suit land, thereby arriving at a wrong decision. - 3. The Learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact when he failed to properly conduct the *locus* in quo visit thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice - 20 4. The Learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact when he imported his own facts as evidence of locus visit whereas they were never observed or seen at locus visit thereby arriving at a wrong decision. - The Appellant asked this Court to allow the appeal; set aside 25 the Judgment and orders of the trial court; that the appellant be declared the lawful owner of the suit land; a permanent injunction issues; eviction order issues; and that general damages, interests and costs are awarded to the Appellant.

HutoQue.

#### $\mathsf{S}$ **Legal Representation**

The Appellant was represented by learned counsel Mr. Louis Odongo, while the Respondents were represented by learned counsel Mr. Ronald Ngobi. Counsel filed written submissions which court has considered and is grateful.

$10$

# Duty of the first appellate Court

This court, sitting as the first appellate Court, has a duty to subject the evidence as a whole to a fresh and exhaustive examination and reach its own decision on the evidence. The Court must weigh conflicting evidence and draw its own $15$ conclusions. It is not merely to scrutinize the evidence and see if there was some evidence to support the lower court's findings and conclusions, and only then can the court decide whether the trial court's findings should be supported. In doing so, the appellate court should make due allowance for the fact that the trial court had the advantage of hearing and seeing witnesses. In short, an appeal from a trial court is by way of a retrial and an appellate court is not bound to follow the trial court's findings of fact if it appears either that it failed to take account of particular circumstances or probabilities or if the impression of the demeanour of a witness is inconsistent with the evidence generally. See: Selle & another Vs. Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd & others (1968) E. A 123; Pandya Vs. R (1957) E. A 336; David Muhenda & 3 Others Vs. Margaret Kamuje, Civil

Htuto Que

### Appeal No. 9 of 1999 (SCU); Fr. Narensio Begumisa & 3 $\mathsf{S}$ others Vs. Eric Tibebaga, Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002.

In Kifamunte Henry Vs. Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 10 of **1997**, the Supreme Court held that it was the duty of the first appellate court to rehear the case on appeal, by reconsidering $10$ all the materials which were before the trial court, and make up its own mind. The Court observed that failure by a first appellate court to evaluate the material as a whole constitutes an error of law.

## Resolution of the grounds of appeal

I will resolve all the grounds together as they relate to the findings on the ownership of the suit land, and the evaluation of evidence, some of which were taken at the *locus*, as well as the conduct of the *locus* in *quo* proceedings.

### Resolution of the grounds

In the trial court, parties filed witness statements and witnesses were cross examined and re-examined. Issues were framed in the written submissions. The issues were; who of the parties is 25 the lawful owner of the suit land; and, remedies available to the parties.

The Appellant (PW1) who was 27 years at the material time of signing the witness statement (3^rd September, 2018) testified 30

Hhro Que.

$\mathsf{S}$

that he was a resident of Te-Oryang Village, Lumoi Parish, Omia $\mathsf{S}$ Pachwa Sub-County, Agago District. He stated he knew the suit land, being 10 (ten) acres, located in Te-Oryang Village, Lumoi Parish. He also asserted that the ten acres form part of 1,500 acres. PW1 traced the history of the suit land to his grandfather, a one Acaye Gabriel (Rip) whom PW1 said had settled thereon $10$ in the early 1940s. The grandfather lived with the Appellant's father, Okongo Yokonia and three other children. PW1 then inherited the suit land upon the father's demise in the year 2004.

Regarding the 1^st Respondent's interest, PW1 stated in chief that in the early 1970s, the 1^st Respondent's mother (a clan sister) approached the Appellant's father who on consulting his siblings, allowed the 1^st Respondent's mother to settle on the southern part of the suit land. The demarcation, according to PW1, was a tree called Atigo, a path created along the 'other shea nut trees' to the Odugu (tree) towards Padye swamp.

About the 2^nd Respondent, PW1 asserted, the 2^nd Respondent was neither a neighbor nor was he using the suit land. He 25 further stated that between the years 1999 up to 2005 at the peak of Joseph Kony insurgency (LRA war), part of the suit land was turned into an Internally Displaced Persons Camp (IDP) and several persons settled there, including the Respondents. That, the camp was administratively called Lumoi trading 30

HutoDun.

- Central village. According to PW1, after the camp disbandment. $\mathsf{S}$ the place became a local trading Centre. To PW1, the Respondents were laying claim to the area where the trading Centre has since been created. PW1 further asserted that the trading Centre was however beyond the common boundary. PW1 concluded that the Respondents erected illegal structures on 10 the suit land and sold part thereof to unknown persons at the time the suit was pending in the trial court. - PW2 (Auma Santa), a 90 year old and an in law to the father of PW1, supported PW1's testimony about how PW1's father 15 accommodated the 1^st Respondent's mother and gave her part of the suit land in the 1970s. PW2 stated that the gifted land was separated by Atigo tree in a straight line with several shea nut trees, kiwa tree, an ant hill, and Odugu tree, stopping at Padye swamp. PW2 stated that the Appellant inherited the suit 20 land. She asserted that it was in the year 2007 that the 1st Respondent started to claim part of the suit land which had become a trading Centre. - PW3 (Ogwang Christopher), a 72 year old, and PW4 (Odida 25 Patrick), a 50 year old, repeated what PW2 had testified about.

The Appellant and his witnesses were cross examined. In cross examination, PW1 stated that the 1st Respondent owns 500 acres of land in Lumoi Central village. PW1 also maintained that

HhroQu.

$\overline{7}$

the 1^st Respondent's parent was given land, not in 1970s stated $\mathsf{S}$ in chief, but was given in 1955. PW1 also conceded the 1st Respondent has lived there since then. He also conceded that a road was constructed through the suit land in 2010 (funded by Oxfam) and that he did not complain and was not compensated. PW1 however claimed he was in possession of the suit land in 10 the year 2010. At the same time, PW1 conceded the Respondents are in possession of the suit land (10 acres) since the year 1997 in case of the 1^st Respondent who took 09 acres thereof, and the 2^nd Respondent who took 01 acre in the year 2000. $15$

PW1 also stated that he owns 1500 acres of land in Te-Oryang village. This was corroborated by PW2. However, PW2 was inconsistent in her testimony in other respects, for instance, she later denied that the Appellant (PW1) owns land in Te-Oryang 20 village. PW3 stated that Te-Oryang and Lumoi are villages, in Lumoi Parish. He stated that formerly the suit land was in Te-Oryang village before the village was split into other villages. This was after disbandment of the IDPs. PW3 however did not know exactly the land in dispute, as he claimed it measures 150 25 (One Hundred Fifty) acres, yet the parties stated it to be 10 (ten) acres. PW3 insisted the land in Te-Oryang is the Appellant's who was in possession of. PW3 however later conceded he lacked information about the size of the disputed land.

Hurodu

On his part, PW4 testified that the 10 (ten) acres of land are in $\mathsf{S}$ Te-Oryang village and that the Respondents occupy. Unaware of what PW1 had stated, PW4 claimed that the Respondents encroached on the suit land in the year 2007. PW4 however conceded the 1^st Respondent has land within Lumoi village. PW4 also accepted that Te-Oryang and Lumoi are separate 10 villages.

What I can deduce from the Appellant's witnesses is that, they contradicted each other in material respects. They however accept that new villages were created after the disbandment of 15 the IDP camps. Of significance in this appeal are, Lumoi and Te-Oryang villages. The witnesses also accept that the bigger chunks of the suit land remained in Te-Oryang village and the smaller portion went to the newly created Lumoi village. The Appellant also agreed that the entire portion of the 1^st 20 Respondent's 500 acres is within Lumoi village, and that the 1^st Respondent has been there since the year 1997, but the 1st Respondent's mother was there since the year 1955. The Appellant also agreed that the 10 (ten) acres (the suit land) is located within Lumoi village and the 1^st Respondent occupies 25 09 acres, while the $1^{st}$ Respondent occupies 01 acre thereof.

In their defenses, the 1^st Respondent (DW1), a 60 year old at the time, testified that he does not own any land in Te-Oryang but in Lumoi village. He said he owns approximately $1\frac{1}{2}$ kilometer

HUADOW

in length and 1 kilometer in width. DW1 asserted he inherited $\mathsf{S}$ the land from his father in 1962 upon the father's demise. DW1 denied the gifting allegation. DW1 stated that in the year 2006, Lumoi village was subdivided into new villages to create Lumoi Central village, Kamuka village, Wipolo village, Te-Oryang village, Arua village, Tekire village, and Labworomor village. $10$ DW1 testified that in August 1997, the community sat down and identified part of DW1's land as being a suitable location for establishing a trading Centre, and that, that is how Lumoi trading Centre was birthed. DW1 continued that the trading Centre has grown over time and many persons have established 15 permanent structures thereat. He stated that in the year 2000, Oxfam helped the community to construct main road in the trading Centre connecting to Kalongo town from the South and Namukora town in the North. DW1 asserted, at the time of the road construction, the Appellant and his father were at their 20 home in Te-Oryang and never complained. DW1 asserted, it was when the town started growing, that the Appellant started claiming in the year 2007 that his grandfather owned the area. DW1 asserted that the Appellant's father never claimed the suit land during his life time, till his demise in 2004. 25

On his part, the 2^nd Respondent (DW2), a 69 year old at the time (Sept, 2018) denied owning any land in Te-Oryang but in Kamuka village.

HeAdam

The 1^st Respondent called DW3 (Labeja Caesar), a 62 year old, $\mathsf{S}$ a neighbor of the 1^st Respondent, who corroborated DW1, stating the later owns land in Lumoi Central village. DW3 also stated that the Appellant's family had relocated from Lakwa to Te-Oryang where the Appellant and his parents settled and never migrated anywhere. DW4 (Okot Mathew), a 54 year old, $10$ also testified, stating he acquired land in Lumoi village from the 1^st Respondent in the year 2000. DW4 also testified that he knew the Appellant's father (Yokonia Okongo) who at the time DW4 purchased the land (2000), was resident in Te-Oryang. DW4 asserted that the Appellant and his father never 15 questioned DW4's land purchase from the 1^st Respondent.

The defense witnesses were cross examined at length. In cross examination, DW1 stated that during the years 1994-1995 he was at his home where Lumoi Central village was ultimately 20 created. DW1 also recalled a tree where the LC Chairperson of Te-Oryang village used to have his office, saying the tree is (now) located in Lumoi Central village. DW1 also agreed that the Appellant secured a plot of land for himself in Lumoi Central village just like other persons who acquired plots in the area. 25 DW1 also admitted the 2^nd Respondent (DW2) was using part of the suit land. DW1 admitted that the 2^nd Respondent is DW1's paternal uncle, whereas the Appellant is a son to the maternal uncle of DW1. DW1 also admitted selling land (part of the suit land) to many persons such as Opio David; Okot Mathew (in the 30

Harto Que.

- year 2000); Okwangu William; and Olwoch Samuel Aliba. DW1 $\mathsf{S}$ also confirmed that others got plots and did not pay DW1 while other persons paid for the plots. DW1 clarified that between the years 1990-1995 his home was in Lumoi village, and has remained to-date. DW1 was also the LC1 Chairperson of Lumoi Central village, and that by 1997, he was the Resistance Council $10$ 1 Chairperson of the area. DW1 asserted that during the times, the Appellant was resident in Te-Oryang. - On his part, DW2 (the 2^nd Respondent) stated in cross examination that the road (I suppose the road constructed with $15$ the aid of Oxfam) passes through the 1^st Respondent's (DW1's) land. DW2 stated the suit land does not extend to the area which DW2 cultivates. DW2 asserted that he inherited the land from his father. DW2 however stated that between the years 1997 to 2000, he lived in Lomoi village. He wondered why he 20 was sued by the Appellant.

On his part, DW3 stated that the trading Centre is situate on the suit land and that the land belongs to the 1^st Respondent. DW3 conceded the Appellant built a house in the trading Centre just as other persons who got Plots in that area. DW3 testified that the 1^st Respondent gave land to the community (including the Appellant) (to help develop the trading Centre). DW3 named persons who got plots from the 1^st Respondent.

Harto Dun.

- DW4 was cross-examined as well. He stated that the community $\overline{5}$ of Lumoi agreed that the land of the 1^st Respondent was good for the establishment of a trading Centre and requested the 1st Respondent to give people plots, at a fee. According to DW4, the 1^st Respondent (DW1) accepted the request, and that is how DW4 got his plot. DW4 asserted that the Appellant also got a $10$ plot. DW4 stated that the Appellant however sued the 1st Respondent in the LCII Court when the 1^st Respondent asked for money for the plot. - In light of the evidence adduced by the two sides, it has become 15 clearer to me that the suit land is situate where the current trading Centre of Lumoi is. It is also my finding that, that area is occupied by other persons who were not sued by the Appellant in the trial Court. None of the occupants of the suit land who are non-parties herein, testified for the Appellant, to 20 contradict the defense case, that, it is the 1^st Respondent who gave the community plots within Lumoi trading Centre, for the purpose of developing the area. - It is also clearer to me that the dispute became more 25 pronounced after the trading Centre was birthed and became more commercially viable. There is no evidence to show that, before the creation of Lumoi Central village, the Appellant or his father or relations, placed any claim to the area now in issue as being his/theirs. The presence of the Appellant appear more 30

HUADDUM

- pronounced in the present day Te-Oryang village not Lumoi $\mathsf{S}$ village. After the creation of Lumoi Central village, the Appellant's presence in Lumoi Central village was limited, for commercial reasons, he operating a shop, just like others. The Appellant's presence in Lumoi Central village was thus not on account of his purported interests in the ten (10) acres of the $10$ suit land situate within Lumoi Central trading Centre, but on account of a plot he acquired and where he had established his shop, just like other persons, as testified to, by the defense. - In his Judgment, the trial court did its best to summarize the 15 relevant pieces of evidence adduced. The trial Court however, with respect, approached the matter from a wrong footing when it observed that the Appellant had to prove that he was the owner of the 10 acres of land (situate) in Te-Oryang village. I however understand the trial Court's approach was informed by 20 the pleading of the Appellant and evidence he had adduced in chief (vide the witness statements). The Appellant and his witnesses, unlike the Respondents and their witnesses, knew less the about approximate boundaries of the new administrative units. That is why they erroneously thought the 25 suit land is located within Te-Oryang, and not Lumoi Central village. It seems to me the 1^st Respondent, having been the RC Chairperson and in the later years, the LCI Chairperson of Lumoi village/ Lumoi Central village, was more informed about the administrative units and their boundaries than the 30

HutoDen.

Appellant. That perhaps explain why in their witness $\mathsf{S}$ statements and that of their witnesses, the Respondents maintained their stance that they own no land in Te-Oryang village. Technically, I think the Respondents wanted to hold the Appellant to his pleading and evidence, and defeat the Appellant's land ownership claim at that point. However, as it $10$ transpired, the creation of Lumoi Central village as a new administrative unit meant that the suit land comprised of approximately ten (10) acres, found itself in this new village which had developed into a commercially viable trading Centre.

Given the above finding, the trial court, with respect, placed unnecessary weight to the finding made during the locus visit, that the suit land is not situate within Te-Oryang, but Lumoi village. With respect, the trial Court erroneously thought that by so finding, the Appellant had failed to prove his claim, and 20 the dispute had been finally resolved. That conclusion was not entirely correct. In my view, the finding that the suit land was in a different place other than the place pleaded, in the special circumstances, did not and could not undermine the plaintiff's case. On the facts, the Appellant was still, together with the 25 Respondents, able to move the trial Court to the exact suit land, a place the Appellant and the 1^st Respondent conceded, had been visited in the past by the LCII Court. In the circumstances, if the Appellant called the place *Te-Oryang*, but the Respondents called it *Lumoi*, that, in my view, was not fatal to the Appellant's 30

HLAD Dun.

- claim. Therefore, the trial court should have gone ahead to $\mathsf{S}$ evaluate, on the evidence, whether the Appellant had proved his claim, to the required standard, and not merely dismissing it because the Appellant had misstated the name of the area where he believed the suit land is located. It is therefore, for the above reason that I next proceed to consider whether there was $10$ ample material to justify the findings of the trial court that the Appellant does not own the suit land. - The learned trial Magistrate straight away considered the Respondents' evidence, having discredited the Appellant's case. 15 The Learned Magistrate considered the fact that it was conceded by the Appellant that the 1^st Respondent owns 500 acres of land in Lumoi Central village and that the Appellant's father never challenged that ownership, as well as the claim to the 10 acres situate in Lumoi. The trial Court also considered the evidence 20 that the land the Appellant claims to have inherited from his father, did not exclusively belong to the father but that the father jointly owned with the Appellant's other paternal uncles. The trial Court also considered contradictions in the Appellant's 25 case.

I have considered the evidence as a whole, and find nothing to fault the trial Court in the manner it evaluated the evidence on record. The court gave reasons for rejecting the Appellant's version while accepting the Defense case. I find that the

HuroQue. Appellant did not demonstrate the clear basis for his claim to $\mathsf{S}$ the land in the present Lumoi Central village. The totality of the evidence placed the Appellant and his relations in the present day Te-Oryang village and not Lumoi Central village. The creation of Lumoi Central village, although curved out of Te-Oryang, did not affect the land linked to the Appellant and his $10$ relations, not being the suit land. On the contrary, the land in Lumoi trading Centre is strongly linked to the 1^st Respondent, whom the Appellant and witnesses conceded, owns 500 acres there.

I have also considered the fact that during the locus visit, the Appellant did not demonstrate where his alleged 10 acres of land begin and end, at least going by the sketch plan of the locus. I have considered the argument for the Appellant that the trial Court record at the *locus* did not reflect that the appellant 20 was tasked (by court) to identify the boundaries of the suit land. With respect, the record at the *locus* shows that the Appellant's then counsel instead of asking the appellant to identify the land boundary, chose to recall the $1^{st}$ Respondent (an adversary) for cross examination at the *locus*. There is nothing more than that. 25 In the circumstances, the present Counsel who did not participate in the prosecution of the Appellant's case in the trial court, cannot blame that court for not tasking the Appellant to prove his claim while at the locus. The blame can fairly and squarely fall on the then counsel for the Appellant. I must state 30

Hedo Den-

that it was not the duty of the trial court, in an adversarial $\mathsf{S}$ system of litigation such as ours, to help any party to prove his case whilst at the *locus*. The court had no duty to ask a party to do what that party did not wish to. A court should even be more cautious in the conduct of court proceedings where parties are represented, lest a court is accused of descending into the arena $10$ of litigation.

Similarly, Learned Counsel for the Appellant cannot allege that other happenings occurred at the locus in quo beyond what was captured on record, in the absence of proof. It appears the 15 Appellant's counsel, with respect, is mixing the notes of the trial Court taken at the pre hearing *locus* visit, which is not evidence, with that taken at the locus visit on the close of the Defense case. Pre hearing locus visit, in my view, is not a judicial hearing, as it happens before witnesses are sworn and heard in 20 court. Pre-hearing locus visit merely helps Court to appreciate the status quo on the suit land before the hearing. This Court understands that this is now guided by the rules of this Court, as amended in the year 2019. See O.11A rule 3(2) CPR, as amended. 25

Adverting to the map drawn at the post trial locus visit, I find that it encompasses what the Defense had testified about in Court. Significantly, it shows the location of the suit land, as being in Lumoi trading Centre, and not elsewhere. It also shows

Herodu.

the trading Centre buildings without necessarily naming who $\mathsf{S}$ owns what building. From the Padyer stream in the south towards Kalongo-Lumoi Road, but before reaching Lumoi trading centre, lies the home of the Respondent's son (the record does not specify which of the two Respondents), a grave of the Respondent's Nephew (the exact Respondent is not stated). $10$

The locus map also shows the home of the Appellant, but sandwiched from the suit land. I note that the trial Court did not rely on the stated features at the locus in quo (son's home, grave, and the plaintiff's/ Appellant's home) in its Judgment.

In the circumstances, I find that the alleged improper conduct of the proceedings at the locus in quo and the alleged importation of material in evidence, not made out. In any case, no material is shown to have informed the decision of the trial 20 Court, beyond that on record. The locus conduct, in my view, complied with the Practice Direction No. 1 of 2007, and case law on the subject. See: Alimarina Okot & 4 Others Vs. Lamoo Hellen, High Court Civil Appeal No. 026 of 2018, (Stephen Mubiru, J.); David Acar & 3 others Vs. Alfred Acar Aliro 25 (1982) HCB 60, Bongole Geoffrey & 4 Others Vs. Agnes Nakiwala, Civil Appeal No. 0076 of 2015 (Court of Appeal).

HUADQue

I would therefore, with respect, disagree with the criticisms $\mathsf{S}$ levelled against the trial Court. Consequently, all the grounds of Appeal would fail which I would dismiss.

The dismissal of the grounds aside, I have however noted that the trial Court, with respect, ordered for the eviction of the $10$ Appellant from the trading Centre. The evidence on record shows that, the Appellant and his children had been allowed to use part of the suit land, just like other members of the community, and have plots there, for commercial ventures. The evidence shows that the 1^st Respondent had no serious qualms $15$ with that arrangement and did not purport to challenge it in the trial court. In that limited context, the trial court, with respect, erred in ordering for the eviction of the Appellant from Lumoi trading Centre. Similarly, the trial court erred in ordering for the eviction of persons who were not parties to the suit, from 20 Lumoi Central village. Those affected include Nyeko Richard (the Appellant's son), Alice Obol (the Appellant's Daughter), Oyoo Charles (the Appellant's Nephew); and a one Opio Thomas, Okot Albino and Ogun Alex.

In the absence of a counterclaim by the Respondents against the Appellant and those affected persons, the eviction order was groundless and erroneous at law. Although no ground of appeal was framed in respect of my above finding and conclusions, this

Hutoam-

Court is justified in making the findings, in the exercise of its $\mathsf{S}$ powers under 43 rule 27 of the CPR.

In light of the above findings and conclusions, I order as follows;

1. The Appeal wholly fails and is hereby dismissed. $10$

- 2. The order of the trial Court is however varied to the extent that the eviction of the Appellant, his daughter, son, nephew, and all persons named in this Judgment, from the suit land located in Lumoi Trading Centre/ Lumoi Central Village where the Respondents concede those persons lived, is hereby set aside and they may regain their respective portions, if already evicted. - 20 3. The Appellant shall pay full taxed costs of the trial Court but half of the taxed costs of the Appeal, to the Respondents.

It is so ordered.

Delivered, dated and signed in Chambers this 24^th day of April, 2023.

> George Okello **JUDGE HIGH COURT**

Judgment read in Chambers in the presence of; $\mathsf{S}$

## 1:15pm 24^th April, 2023 **Attendance**

Mr. Louis Odongo, Counsel for the Appellant. $10$ The Appellant is in court. Mr. Ngobi Ronald, counsel for the Respondents. The Respondents in Court.

Mr. Abala Robert Robby, Court Clerk.

Appellant's Counsel: The matter is for Judgment. We are ready to receive the Judgment.

**Respondents' Counsel:** I am ready to receive the Judgment.

Court: Judgement read in Chambers. Right of Appeal explained.

> George Okello **JUDGE HIGH COURT**

$25$