Court of Appeal overturns High Court decision in Nakasongola land case
The Court of Appeal has overturned a previous High Court ruling regarding a contentious land dispute in Nakasongola.
The appeal, registered as Civil Appeal No. 139 of 2014, involved appellants Bagula Joseph, Kato Robert, and Nalongo Kasule challenging the decision favoring respondent Lubega George William. The dispute centered on the ownership and division of a parcel of land situated in Migera.
Keep Reading
The origins of the case trace back to a complaint filed by the appellants in the Chief Magistrate’s Court of Nakasongola in 2007.
The appellants claimed ownership of the land, measuring 80 feet by 360 feet, inherited from their late father, Didas Kasule.
They asserted that Kasule had acquired the land through a lease offer granted by the Uganda Land Commission in 1984. However, their attempts to develop the land in 2002 were obstructed by Lubega, who claimed ownership of the same parcel.
Lubega contended that he had acquired the land in 1972 and had generously given half of it to Didas Kasule. Following Kasule’s death, Lubega entered into an agreement with a third party, John Mukasa, which was later deemed void.
In 2011, the High Court upheld the decision of the Chief Magistrate's Court, which had ordered the division of the land between Lubega and Mukasa. The appellants were dissatisfied with this decision, arguing that the agreement between Lubega and Mukasa was null and void and that the High Court failed to properly evaluate the evidence presented.
Appeal Court’s findings
The Court of Appeal, presided over by Justices Muzamiru Mutangula Kibeedi, Christopher Gashirabake, and Oscar John Kihika, conducted a thorough re-evaluation of the evidence.
The appellate judges found that the High Court had indeed failed to properly reassess the evidence and had erroneously upheld the trial magistrate's decision.
Justice Gashirabake, delivering the lead judgment, stated that the High Court and the trial magistrate had erred in their judgment by relying on an agreement executed under duress.
Furthermore, the respondent, Lubega, had not provided sufficient evidence to prove his legal or equitable interest in the disputed land to the required standard of a balance of probabilities.
The Court of Appeal set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Chief Magistrate’s Court and declared that the disputed land, measuring 80 feet by 360 feet belongs to the estate of the late Didas Kasule.
A permanent injunction was issued, restraining Lubega from interfering with the appellants' quiet enjoyment and possession of the land.
