Akullu v Odong (Civil Appeal No. 0021 of 2018) [2018] UGHCLD 59 (20 September 2018)

Flynote
Land
Case summary
In re-evaluating the evidence, the appellant court found that the trail magistrate had not properly considered the evidence. The respondent had failed to prove a better claim to the land on the balance of probabilities yet the appellant enjoyed possession of land.   The court further noted that a person in possession of land in the assumed character with rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against the entire world but for the rightful owner.   The court thus ordered that judgment of the trail magistrate be set aside and a new judgment entered for the appellant against the respondent. The appeal was thereby allowed with costs to the appellant.

 
▲ To the top