Nakitende v Wahidi and Another (Civil Appeal 3 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 916 (13 September 2024)

Full Case Text

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT HOMA

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 003 OF 2024 [Appeal from the judgment and orders of H/W Lwanga Charles Nsibambi, Magistrate Grade I, Kagadi, Kibaale Chief Magistrate's Court in Civil Suit No. 034 of 2018 dated 16/3/2021]

#### NAKITENDE AMINAH::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

#### **VERSUS**

### **1. WAHIDI MUSTAFA** 2. ASIIMWE ALEX::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE BYARUHANGA JESSE RUGYEMA

## JUDGMENT

#### Background

$\overline{u}$ $\overline{u}$ $\overline{u}$

- [1] The Appellant/Plaintiff sued the 2 Respondents/Defendants for interalia, a declaration that she is the lawful owner of 1.5 acres of land at Katerera, Kyaterekera Sub-County, Kagadi District and that the purchase of the suit property by the $2^{nd}$ Respondent from the $1st$ Respondent was illegal and fraudulent and therefore, that the $2nd$ Respondent was a trespasser. It was the Appellant's case that she was bequeathed the suit land by way of a WILL by her grandmother, a one Kabadaaki Jorolina who died around 1990. - $[2]$ That in around 1995, the Appellant got married to the $1^{st}$ Respondent and settled at her husband's land in Mpumude village, Kagadi District and in around the year 2000, the ADF insurgency in Bundibugyo which extended to Kyaterekera made the Appellant, her husband Wahidi Mustafa (1st Respondent), and the entire family to come and settle on the suit land her grandmother had bequeathed her. - [3] That however, later when the UPDF contained the ADF insurgence, the Appellant and her husband, the 1st Respondent went to $\frac{M}{\epsilon_0} = \frac{\epsilon_0}{\epsilon_0} \frac{1}{\epsilon_0}$ $\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc} \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{1}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{2}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{2}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{2}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{3}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{3}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{3}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{3}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{3}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{3}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{3}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{3}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{3$ $\alpha = \omega^{\frac{N}{2}} \qquad \text{for all } \alpha = 0.$ $\frac{d\theta}{d\theta} = \frac{d\theta}{d\theta} = \frac{d\theta}{d\theta}$ $\label{eq:1} \begin{array}{ccccccccc} \alpha & \beta & \beta & \alpha & \beta & \alpha & \beta & \alpha & \beta & \alpha & \beta & \alpha & \beta & \alpha & \beta & \beta & \alpha & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta & \beta &$ $x \stackrel{\circ}{=} -x$ $\chi^{(1)}_{\mu\nu}$ as $\eta_{\mu}$ and $\chi^{(1)}_{\mu}$ as $\chi^{(2)}_{\mu}$ and $\chi^{(3)}_{\mu}$ and $\chi^{(4)}_{\mu}$ and $\chi^{(4)}_{\mu}$ and $\chi^{(4)}_{\mu}$ and $\chi^{(4)}_{\mu}$ and $\chi^{(4)}_{\mu}$ and $\chi^{(4)}_{\mu}$ and $\chi^{(4)}_{\mu}$ and $\chi^{(4)}_{\mu}$ and $\chi^{$

Kyaterekera Trading Centre and stayed there until after about 10 years when she returned to utilise the suit land and found that it had been bought by the $2^{nd}$ Respondent from her husband, the $1^{st}$ Respondent. It is the Appellant's contention that the $2^{nd}$ Respondent purchased the suit property fraudulently because he knew that the Appellant was in possession of the suit land and that the 2nd Respondent failed to conduct due diligence before purchasing the land. That the $2^{nd}$ Respondent bulldozed the land, destroyed the grave of her child, her grandmother's temporary house and crops which she holds the Respondents in special damages.

- The $1st$ Respondent never filed a defence and never appeared in $[4]$ court to defend the suit. The $2^{nd}$ Respondent averred that he acquired the suit property i.e. kibanja developed with a permanent house by way of purchase at a consideration of Ugx. $4,000,000/=$ which he occupied uninterrupted since 2016 when he was sued in court. - The trial magistrate on his part, upon evaluation of the evidence $[5]$ before him found that the Appellant's claim over the suit land is founded in the WILL of her grandmother Kabadaaki Jorolina which was never attested to by at least 2 witnesses thus invalid. The trial magistrate concluded that the $2^{nd}$ **Respondent** lawfully purchased the suit land/kibanja from the 1st Respondent and accordingly entered judgment in favour of the $2^{nd}$ Respondent. - The Appellant was dissatisfied with the decision of the trial $[6]$ magistrate and lodged the present appeal on the following grounds of appeal: - 1. The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact when he wrongly evaluated the evidence of the Plaintiff's witnesses i.e. the Plaintiff inherited the suit land from the grandmother hence made wrong findings on the issues in the case. $\mathcal{L}^{\text{max}}$ - The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to $2.$ consider the WILL and locus in his judgment thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice. $\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_{\text{max}} \qquad \mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_{\text{max}} \qquad \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L}$

The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact when he 3. passed the judgment in favour of the Defendants and awarded costs and general damages without any basis thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.

### **Counsel legal representation**

The Appellant was represented by Mr. Kasangaki Simon of Ms. $[7]$ Kasangaki & Co. Advocates, Masindi while the 1st Respondent was represented by Mr. Isaac Mwebaze of Ms. Aequitas Advocates, Kampala. Both Counsel filed their respective submissions for consideration of this court in the determination of the appeal.

### Preliminary point of law

$\begin{pmatrix}\n\mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf{1} & \mathbf$

$\alpha$ $\frac{1}{6}$ S $\frac{1}{2}$ S $\frac{1}{2}$ S $\frac{1}{2}$ S $\frac{1}{2}$ S $\frac{1}{2}$ S $\frac{1}{2}$ S $\frac{1}{2}$ S $\frac{1}{2}$ S $\frac{1}{2}$ S $\frac{1}{2}$ S $\frac{1}{2}$ S $\frac{1}{2}$ S $\frac{1}{2}$ S $\frac{1}{2}$ S $\frac{1}{2}$ S $\frac{1}{2}$ S $\frac{1}{2}$ S $\frac{1}{2}$ S $\frac{1}{2$

$\mathbb{R}$ $\mathbb{F}$ $\mathbb{F}$ $\mathbb{F}$ $\mathbb{F}$ $\mathbb{R}$ $\mathbb{R}$ $\mathbb{R}$

- Counsel for the $1st$ Respondent raised a point of law to the effect $[8]$ that all the 3 grounds of appeal are too general, argumentative and offended the provisions of **0.43 rr 1 & 2 CPR**. Counsel contended that the grounds of appeal did not specify which witness evidence was wrongly evaluated and or specify which element of the WILL is contested or which fact from locus was not considered. - On perusal of the 3 grounds of appeal, I find that they clearly point $[9]$ out the grounds of objection to the decision appealed from, the key element provided for under **0.43 rr 1 & 2 CPR** which provides that the memorandum should set forth concisely under distinct heads; the grounds of objection to the decree appealed from without any argument or narrative. The seemingly clumsy form of the grounds of appeal appear to be a result of the fact that the Appellant personally formulated the grounds of appeal since she was unrepresented. Otherwise, the Appellant's grounds of appeal do specifically point out errors observed in the course of the trial. $\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}$ - [10] In view of the above, this court as a $1^{\circ}$ appellate court proceeds to consider and determine the appeal on its merits as mandated, by subjecting the evidence presented at the trial court to a fresh and exhaustive scrutiny and re-appraisal and draw own inference and $\theta = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \right)^2 \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \right)^2 \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \right)^2 \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \right)^2 \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \right)^2 \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \right)^2 \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \right)^2 \left( \frac{1}{$ $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}} = \begin{bmatrix} \mathcal{A} & \mathcal{A} \\ \mathcal{A} & \mathcal{A} \end{bmatrix}$

$\mathbf{z}$

$\mathbf{S} = \mathbf{S}^{(1)}$

$\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$

$\sim$ 65

$\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{R}^2}$ = $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{R}^2}$ = $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{R}^2}$ = $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{R}^2}$ = $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{R}^2}$ = $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{R}^2}$ = $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{R}^2}$ = $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{R}^2}$ = $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{R}^2}$ = $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{R}^2}$ = $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{R}^2}$ =

conclusions bearing in mind that this court neither saw nor heard the witnesses testifying, Narsensio Begumisa & 3 Ors Vs Eric Tiberaga S. C. C. A No. 17 of 2000 [2004] KALR 236 and Lovinsa Nankya Vs Nsibambi [1980] HCB 81. However, since all the 3 grounds of appeal revolve around how the trial magistrate evaluated the evidence before him to arrive at the conclusions and the decision he made, I proceed to determine the appeal by resolving all the 3 grounds of appeal together.

## Grounds 1, 2, & 3: Evaluation of Evidence

[11] Counsel for the Appellant submitted that although the attestation of the WILL which was relied upon as proof of how she acquired the suit land was in issue, the family members of the Appellant affirmed the WILL. The WILL was exhibited as P. Exh.1 by Rwatooro Abdul (PW4) who had its custody. Counsel for the Respondent attacked the WILL for lack of attestation and therefore, offended S.50 of the Succession Act as amended, a fact Counsel for the Appellant appeared to concede to.

## [12] As was held in Rev. James Kyamukama & Anor Vs Catherine Zaribwende & Anor H. C. C. S. No. 1144 of 1997 [1997] UGHC1.

"The making and validity of a Will is governed principally, by the provisions of sections 36 and 50 of the Succession Act.....the $\mathbf{z}^{\top}$ Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom $\approx^{-\otimes}$ must have seen the testator sign or affix his or her mark to the Will or have seen some other person sign the Will in the presence and by the direction of the testator.......each of the witnesses must sign the Will in the presence of the testator,...and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary". $\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccccccccccccc} & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &$

[13] In this case, as rightly found by the trial magistrate, **P. Exh.1** is not attested to as required under S.50 as amended by S.31 of the $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ Succession Amendment Act, 2022.

း အား အမြင်အား အမြင်အား အမြို့သည်။ အမြင်းအမြင်း အမြင်းအမြင်း အမြောင်းအမြင်း အမြင်းအမြင်းအမြင်းအမြင်းအမြင်းအမြင် အမြင်းအမြင်းအမြင်းအမြင်းအမြင်းအမြင်းအမြင်းအမြင်းအမြင်းအမြင်းအမြင်းအမြင်းအမြင်းအမြင်းအမြင်းအမြင်းအမြင်းအမြင်းအ

$\mathbb{F}_{\mathbb{C}} \otimes \mathbb{F}_{q} \longrightarrow \mathbb{F}_{q}$

del d'alla de de mandia de la face

The trial magistrate rightly found the Will invalid which decision I find was justified as the WILL did not meet the set legal standards. $\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccccccccccccc} \Box_1 & \Box_2 & \Box_3 & \Box_4 & \Box_5 & \Box_5 & \Box_5 & \Box_5 & \Box_5 & \Box_5 & \Box_5 & \Box_5$ $\label{eq:1} \begin{array}{ccccccccc} \alpha_{\alpha\beta\gamma} & \alpha_{\beta\gamma} & \alpha_{\beta\gamma} & \alpha_{\beta\gamma} & \alpha_{\beta\gamma} & \alpha_{\beta\gamma} & \alpha_{\beta\gamma} & \alpha_{\beta\gamma} & \alpha_{\beta\gamma} & \alpha_{\beta\gamma} & \alpha_{\beta\gamma} & \alpha_{\beta\gamma} & \alpha_{\beta\gamma} & \alpha_{\beta\gamma} & \alpha_{\beta\gamma} & \alpha_{\beta\gamma} & \alpha_{\beta\gamma} & \alpha_{\beta\gamma} & \alpha_{\beta\gamma} & \alpha_{\beta\gamma} & \alpha_{\beta\gamma} & \alpha_{\beta\gamma} & \alpha_{\$

$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc} \begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc$

[14] In the premises, the **Appellant** was under duty to adduce any other evidence to prove that she was the rightful owner of the suit land. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the **Appellant** led evidence that her grandmother occupied the suit land before the **Appellant** was born for a long time. That on the suit land there were graves of her people and lastly, that her husband, the $1^{st}$ Respondent conceded in his evidence in an earlier C. S. No. 44 of 2016 (Kisembo Isaya Vs Mustafa Wahidi) that he did not own land and the house he sold to **Kisembo Isaya** for they belonged to the Appellant's mother. That however later, he resold the same to the 2nd Respondent.

[15] Counsel for the Respondent objected to Counsel for the Appellant's reliance on the decision in the Civil Suit No. 44 of 2016 that was heard and concluded by the Kagadi Grade I Court between **Kisembo Isaya** and the 1st Respondent because the resolution of that case never formed part of the evidence by the Appellant at the trial. $\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{E}^2], \mathbb{E}^2] = \frac{1}{2} \mathbb{E}[\mathbb{E}^2]$ , $\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{E}^2] = \mathbb{E}[\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{E}^2]$ .

$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{L}} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{L}} \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{L}}$

[16] I don't agree. Before the trial court, during the cross examination of the 2nd Respondent who testified as DW2, he revealed that he was not aware that the suit land was subject of court proceedings. That the case he was questioned about did not relate to the suit land but related to the house in the trading centre which the Appellant was litigating with Isaya. When the same question was put to Mulanga Kule John (DW2) who witnessed the purchase of the suit land by the $2^{nd}$ Respondent. he stated thus;

> "There was a case between Mustafa and Isaiah. The suit was relating to the same land, he had sold to him the house..... I was aware of the case and I knew that it related to that "land. The agreement for sale was made in March 2016. The - court case had not ended yet **Mustafa** was given money but you did not get a share because you were not staying with $him...$ " $\cdots \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \$

> > $\overline{g}$ $\overline{g}$ $\overline{g}$ $\overline{g}$ $\overline{g}$ $\overline{g}$

$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccccccccc} & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &$

ing the camp distance in the same of the set of the set of the

ಕ್ಷಾಂಡ್ ಸ್ಟ್ರೆಸ್ಟ್ ಸ್ಟ್ರಿಕ್ ಸ್ಟ್ರಾಂಡ್ ಸ್ಟ್ರಿಕ್ ಸ್ಟ್ರಿಕ್ ಸ್ಟ್ರಾಂಡ್ ಸ್ಟ್ರಾಂಡ್ ಸ್ಟ್ರಾಂಡ್ ಸ್ಟ್ರಾಂಡ್ ಸ್ಟ್ರಾಂಡ್ ಸ್ಟ್

$\overline{S}$ $\overline{S}$ $\overline{S}$ $\overline{S}$

ini yan ini kinidika temankan milita kati ini kati ta di ta di ta di ta

[17] In his evidence in chief however, DW2 had explained thus;

$\mathbb{R}^n = \mathbb{R}^n \oplus \mathbb{R}^n \qquad \mathbb{R}^n \oplus \mathbb{R}^n \oplus \mathbb{R}^n \mathbb{R}^n$

$\mathbb{F}_1 \oplus \mathbb{F}_2$

"The Plaintiff's [The Appellant] grandmother stayed on the suit land for over 20 years. She stayed there with her sons..... I was present when Mustafa [ $1st$ Respondent] was buying that land. He bought it from one called Mustafa (Not the 1st Respondent], son to the old woman [Grandmother to the Appellant].

After the death of the old woman the land was distributed, one part was sold to Mustafa [Appellant] and the other it was retained as a family for two children i.e. Kakembo Jamada and Nagujja Fatuma. These children were even given money for compensation when power was being taken through their land. I pray to tender the payment slip".

The payment slip from Umeme was admitted as D. Exh.3. After purchasing the part of the suit land, the 1" Respondent who had separated with his wife, the Appellant brought his family and stayed on the land which he later sold to the $2^{nd}$ Respondent. As per the evidence of Katusabe Abdul (DW3), the 1st Respondent also sold 2 plots on the same land he had bought from the son of Kabadaaki Jorolina (also by the names of Mustafa), to a one Namaizi and Kipene." DW3 also witnessed the sale of the other part of the land to the $2^{nd}$ Respondent.

- [18] Indeed, on locus visit, Namaizi and Kipene were found in occupation of their respective plots of land purchased from the $1st$ Respondent though Kipene could not easily comprehend as to how much she bought the land and for Namaizi, she had lost the purchase agreement. $\mathbf{a}_{\infty} = \frac{1}{16} \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} \mathbf{a}^{-1} - \mathbf{a}^{-1} \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} \mathbf{a}^{-1}$ . $\alpha_{12} = \frac{1}{2} \mu_{11} + \frac{1}{2} \mu_{22} + \frac{1}{2} \mu_{31} + \frac{1}{2} \mu_{31} + \frac{1}{2} \mu_{32} + \frac{1}{2} \mu_{31} + \frac{1}{2} \mu_{32} + \frac{1}{2} \mu_{31}$ a time and the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the - [19] All in all, what is clear is that though at the time the Kagadi Grade I Court C. S. No. 44 of 2016 was being heard and Mustafa Wahidi (1st Respondent) conceded that the suit land was not his, indeed it was not his. It belonged to the family of the late Kabadaaki, grandmother of the Appellant. What belonged to the $1^{st}$ Respondent was part of the suit land he had purchased from his namesake Mustafa, son of the late Kabadaaki which was sold in parts to the $2^{nd}$ Respondent, Namaizi and Kipene. The above evidence was not challenged at all by the Appellant. $\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccccccccccccc} \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \$

ောက္ကိုကို အခ်ိန္ကြား လုိင္း ေပးပါတယ္။ အေျပာကို ေနာ္က်က္ေပး ေနာ္က်က ေျပာကို ေပးပါတယ္။ သူကိုကို ေအခ်ိန္ကြား လုိင္း ေပးပါတယ္။ ေျပာကို ေပးပါတယ္။ ေပးပါတယ္။ ေပးပါတယ္။ ေပးပါတယ္။ ေပးပါတယ္။ ေပးပါတယ္။ ေပးပ

$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{L}}$

Maria de la comunicación de la parte

$\label{eq:Gammac} \mathcal{G}_{\mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{C}_1}}(x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc} \mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{C}_1}(x) & \mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{C}_1}(x) & \mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{C}_1}(x) \\ \mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{C}_1}(x) & \mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{C}_1}(x) & \mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{C}_1}(x) \end{array} \right.$

$\begin{array}{c}\n\mathbf{r} = \begin{bmatrix}\n\mathbf{r} & \mathbf{r} \\ \mathbf{r} & \mathbf{r} \\ \mathbf{r} & \mathbf{r}\n\end{bmatrix} & \mathbf{r} = \begin{bmatrix}\n\mathbf{r} & \mathbf{r} \\ \mathbf{r} & \mathbf{r} & \mathbf{r} \\ \mathbf{r} & \mathbf{r} & \mathbf{r}\n\end{bmatrix} & \mathbf{r} = \begin{bmatrix}\n\mathbf{r} & \mathbf{r} \\ \mathbf{r} & \mathbf{r} & \mathbf{r} \\ \mathbf{r} & \mathbf{r} & \mathbf{r}\n\end$

$x = x + \alpha$

that is the share from the

$\lambda$ $\downarrow$ $\downarrow$ $\downarrow$ $\downarrow$

$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$

$\mathcal{L}_{\text{max}} \oplus$

$\mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{L}}$ $\mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{L}}$ $\mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{L}}$

$\langle \alpha \rangle = \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \alpha \\ \alpha \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \alpha \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \alpha \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \alpha \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \alpha \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \alpha \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \alpha \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \alpha \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \alpha \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \alpha \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \alpha \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \alpha \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}$

- [20] The observation by Counsel for the Respondents that the Kagadi Grade I C. S. No. 44 of 2016 between Kisembo Isaya and Mustafa Wahidi never formed part of the evidence before the trial court is devoid of any merit since as I have disclosed above, evidence regarding that suit was adduced by both the $2^{nd}$ Respondent (DW1) and DW2 and therefore, it was canvassed in evidence before the trial magistrate. - [21] All in all, I find that the trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence before him and found that the 2nd Respondent was the lawful owner of the suit portion of land which he legally purchased from the 1st Respondent after the vendor's due diligence in the presence of neighbours to the land and the L. C.s of the area who confirmed that it belonged to the vendor, the 1st Respondent. The trial magistrate did not award any general damages as alleged by Counsel for the Appellant for the $2^{nd}$ Respondent never sought any, in his pleadings. - [22] In the premises, I find all the 3 grounds of appeal devoid of any merit and as a result, the judgment and orders of the trial magistrate are accordingly upheld and the appeal is dismissed with costs. $\mathbb{R}$ $\mathbb{R}$ $\mathbb{R}$ $\mathbb{R}$

Dated at Hoima this 13th day of September, 2024.

$\mathbb{R}^2 \times \mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$

Byaruhanga Jesse Rugyema JUDGE

$172$

[전 11] (코 漢 1901) 1