Land Law — Ownership—The nature and character of the rights vested in the land in dispute relate to its ownership and control. Ownership is the most comprehensive right that one can have in any property and it comes with different rights. — Family Land — section 39 (1) (c) of The Land Act — where a couple is married and the land in question is family land, ownership is restricted in various ways which prevent an owner the full entitlements towards his or her property. The provisions create a general Incapacity of one spouse to contract in his or her own name, in respect of family land, without the other’s consent. This necessarily requires a husband and wife to jointly make the decisions concerning family land and their failure to agree can nullify any proposed transaction. — A spouse may file a suit opposing transfer of family land made by the other In violation of statutory restrictions on his or her power of disposition. — Dealings in family Land — Prospective purchasers of land have two primary concerns; to establish whether the vendor has the right to sell the land in question and secondly, whether there are any third-party rights to the land which may interfere with their intended use of the land be it for both registered and unregistered land.
Family Law — marital status alone does not establish that spouses intend to share ownership, control, and risk of all property interests held by either of them as partners. In the general sense, neither a wife is an agent of her husband nor is a husband the agent of his wife — a couple's financial integration and behaviour within the context of their marriage is relevant to determining the existence and scope of an implied partnership or agency between them — Section 39 (1) (c) of The Land Act creates the legal right to control family land gives a spouse who does not directly transact in the land an opportunity to monitor, control, and insure against loss from the other spouse’s conduct within the scope of their shared ownership and control — the legal right to control family land implies that one spouse cannot deny that the other acted as his or her agent if he or she: (i) failed to use ordinary care to control the other spouse; (ii) that failure enabled the other party to create a reasonable misperception of agency in a third party; and (Hi) the third party changed his or her position in reliance on that misperception. One spouse may be liable for another if he or she knows about, and accepts, the benefits of the other spouse's act with knowledge after the fact. A spouse ratifies the act of another by manifesting assent or by conduct that justifies a reasonable assumption that the spouse so consents — transactions a spouse makes for purposes of increasing or making improvements to the matrimonial property, if both spouses benefit from the proceeds of the contract, creates a relationship of agency between the spouses -
Evidence — what constitutes a major contradiction will vary from case to case. The question always is whether or not the contradictory elements are material, i.e. “essential” to the determination of the case. Materiality is determined on basis of the relative importance between the point being offered by the contradictory evidence and its consequence to the determination of any of the facts or issues necessary to be proved.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA SITTING AT GULU
ORYEM DAVID APPELLANT
OMONY PHILLIP RESPONDENT
Heard: 23 June, 2020.
Delivered: 30 October, 2020.