Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

The Land Division is a Division created at the High Court Head office at Kampala.

The Division is charged with the following functions:Responsibility of supervising the work of Land Tribunals, the adjudication of all land related dispute fall under this Division. The land Division is established with three judges with a separate registry for the Division .There is a Registrar for the Land Division who doubles as the Registrar of the Land Tribunals. A desk office was also established under the office of the Registrar to handle the activities of the District Land Tribunals.

 

Physical address
Twed Towers, along Kafu Road, Nakasero, Kampala.
Visit website
https://judiciary.go.ug/data/smenu/16/Land%20Division.html
7 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
7 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
September 2016
Businge & Anor v Katabarwa (HCT-01-CV-LD-CA-0013 of 2016) [2016] UGHCLD 20 (22 September 2016)
Appeal struck off and guardian‑ad‑litem application dismissed where appeal was filed through an unappointed guardian, rendering it premature.
Civil procedure – appointment of guardian ad litem; competency of appeal – filing through unappointed guardian; proof of minority – burden of proof; striking off premature memorandum of appeal; costs for procedural non‑compliance.
 22 September 2016
Luganda v Mbawadde and 3 Others (HCCS NO. 166 OF 2016) [2016] UGHCLD 282 (19 September 2016)
Fraudulent land transfers and unenforceable mortgage voided; plaintiff restored as rightful owner.
Property law - fraudulent transfer of land title - invalid and unenforceable mortgage - bona fide purchaser obligations.
 19 September 2016
Tinkasimire v Bigodi Growers Co-operative society (HCT – 01 – LD – CA – 0032 of 2013) [2016] UGHCLD 19 (9 September 2016)
Appeal dismissed — respondent upheld as bona fide occupant; appellant held a trespasser; costs awarded.
Land law – bona fide occupant under section 29(2) Land Act; possession disputes – burden of proof and credibility of documentary evidence; locus-in-quo visit as evidential aid; definition and elements of trespass; appeal as rehearing with caution where appellate court did not see witnesses.
 9 September 2016
Kamusana v Kagurusi (Civil Appeal No. 0002 of 2013) [2016] UGHCLD 21 (6 September 2016)
Appeal dismissed: sale agreement and locus-in-quo findings sufficiently proved respondent’s possession and title; forgery claim unproven.
Land law – possession and title – admissibility and probative value of a sale agreement; evidence – disputed signatures and need for handwriting expertise; procedure – locus-in-quo inspection and when lack of detailed record amounts to miscarriage of justice; civil appeals – appellate re-evaluation of facts and requirement for specific, not general, grounds of appeal (Order 43 r.1(2) CPR).
 6 September 2016
Katagasa v Barinda (Civil Appeal No. 0032 of 2012) [2016] UGHCLD 23 (6 September 2016)
Appellant failed to prove land ownership; appellate court upheld trial finding and dismissed appeal with costs.
* Land law – proof of title – burden of proof on claimant to establish ownership on balance of probabilities. * Evidence – appellate re-evaluation of trial evidence (Pandya principle) – credibility and inconsistencies. * Possession/occupation and locus in quo inspection as evidentiary support for title. * Civil procedure – adequacy of grounds of appeal (Order 43 Rule 1(2)).
 6 September 2016
Munina v Murekateete (Civil Appeal No. 0026 of 2014) [2016] UGHCLD 22 (6 September 2016)
Applicant’s challenges to limitation, ownership and locus visit dismissed; respondent upheld as landowner and appellant a trespasser.
Civil procedure – preliminary objection – discretion to decide point before, at or after hearing; Limitation – trespass as continuing tort; Evidence – requirement for documents under s.91 Evidence Act and admissibility of secondary/oral corroboration; Land law – proof of ownership and effect of communal ownership claims; Locus-in-quo – visit admissible but omission to reference does not necessarily cause prejudice.
 6 September 2016
The Board of Governors Rwenzori SAAD Isamic Institute v Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (HCT – 01 – LD – MA – 0003 of 2016) [2016] UGHCLD 14 (2 September 2016)
Court reviewed its order to cancel respondent’s registration, enter applicant as proprietor and grant vacant possession.
Civil procedure — Review of judgment — Order 46 CPR — review permissible for mistake or error apparent on face of record or discovery of new evidence; Execution of decree — cancellation of respondent’s registration and entry of applicant on title to give effect to decree; Land law — leasehold titles and Registrar’s power — Registrar may cancel but requires specific court direction to issue fresh title; Execution remedies — court may order vacant possession to effect decree; Procedural — locus standi of deponent to affidavit in representative capacity.
 2 September 2016