Land Dispute

Obina & 6 Ors v Okumu & Ors (CIVIL APPEAL No. 0042 OF 2018) [2018] UGHCLD 73 (6 December 2018);


Search Summary: 

In this case, the appellant appealed against the decision of the trail magistrate, that the respondents were the bona fide purchasers of the suit land.

The appeal was founded on grounds that the trail magistrate erred in law and fact when he failed to evaluate the evidence on record and by rejecting the plaintiffs’ witnesses’ testimony which would have helped court reach a just conclusion.


The appellants argued that only one of them testified on his own behalf and on behalf of the rest, thus the conclusion that the evidence did not satisfy court on the issue of trespass.


Headnote and Holding: 

The appellate court stated that where it’s necessary, the court may order that only one witness or a few witnesses may be called to testify.

The court further found that the trail court was wrong in rejecting other appellants to give evidence.


Further the court found that boundary positions publically agreed to and observed by neighbors over long periods of time by neighbors, will be binding even when found later to be inaccurate.


The appellants were able to prove trespass by the respondent.

The court, therefore declared that the land belonged to the appellants and that the stream was the natural boundary between their land and that of the respondents.


The appeal was therefore allowed.


Subscribe to RSS - Land Dispute