Odeb Eric v Karugaba George and Others (HC CV CA NO.0049 OF 2009) [2012] UGHC 415 (27 April 2012)

#### **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

#### **7 HIGH COURT OF UGANDAATFORTPORTAL**

## **HC CV CA NO.0049 OF"2009-J=='--==~:<sup>~</sup>**

# **ODEB^ERIC \_\_\_ APPELLANT**

**VERSUS**

### **KARUGABA GEORGE KISEMBO EMMANUEL HAKIIZA GODFREY RESPONDENT**

#### **BEFORE HON. MR. JUSTICE MIKE Jf CHIBITA**

#### **JUDGMENT**

This was an appeal from the judgment and decree of His Worship Kagoda Ntende, Magistrate Grade 1, Kyenjojo which was-delivered on 29th July,. 2009.

Four grounds of appeal were formulated, to wit, that:-

- 1. The learned trial Magistrate failed to properly evaluate^-cf evidence on record thereby coming to a wrong conclusion. - 2. The learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by neglecting the evidence adduced by the landlord as to the proprietorship of the suit land as the appellant had lived on the disputed land for a very long time. - 3. The learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact in basing himself on the evidence at locus adduced by non witnesses to the suit thereby causing a miscarriage ofjustice. - 4. The learned trial Magistrate manifestly exhibited biasness throughout the hearing and at the locus thereby causing miscarriage ofjustice.

**H,GH COURT FORT PORT <sup>I</sup> CERTIFY THAT TH IS IS A TR COPY OF THE ORIGINAL RECO DATG:.............................. REGIS -I1GH COURT l-ORT PORTAL CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE jpY op THE ORIGINAL RECORD REGIST** XT M/s Rukidi Mpuuga Law Chambers filed written submissions for the Appellant while learned Counsel Miriam Kesiime filed for the Respondents.

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a suit-against the three respondents in the District Land Tribunal claiming for $-s$ repossession of his land which he contended that they had encroached on.

The learned trial Magistrate found for the defendants hence this appeal.

On ground one, which is a general ground, having read through the $-\omega$ learned trial Magistrate's judgment T find that he had a good grasp of the case, he evaluated the evidence of the various witnesses, and correctly compared and contrasted plaintiff's witnesses against those of the defendants.

The conclusion that he reached at the end was the logical culmination of the synthesis of the evidence. I therefore find that the learned trial Magistrate properly evaluated evidence on record and reached the logical conclusion.

Ground one of appeal therefore fails.

**THE COURT FORT PORTAL**

DATE

HE ORIGINAL RECORD<sup>®</sup>

The second ground is to the effect that the learned trial Magistrate $-20$ ignored the evidence of PW 4 the landlord, Kato Rukiidi. The judgment refers to all the plaintiff's witnesses in general at one point:-

"Hence having looked at the evidence of the plaintiff and that of the witnesses he brought who appeared not to have been-25 useful."

HIGH COURT FORT PORTAL

It is safe to assume that PW 4 was included in the witnesses whom Magistrate found useful'. This is 'not trial the learned understandable given that the witness apart from being the overall

THIS IS A TRUE<br>COPY ON THE ORIGINAL RECORD

**DATE:...**

landlord was not involved in the sale between the defendants and the seller. He was a third party without notice to the transaction.

attention to the evidence of PW 4 did not alter the outcome of the casg-nnd\_therefore,did not occasion a miscarriage ofjustice.

Ground two of appeal therefore also fails.

On the learned trial Magistrate basing himself on non witnesses at the locus, Counsel for the appellant did not offer any arguments in support of the ground in his submissions. Counsel for the respondents, likewise,.left the ground un canvassed.

This ground therefore is deemed to have been abandoned.

Ground four was to the effect that the trial Magistrate manifestly exhibited biasness throughout the hearing. ' No evidence was adduced by Counsel for the Appellants- to justify this serious allegation.

I

The ground was therefore un supported by evidence and must fail.

The appeal having failed on all the gi ounds is therefore dismissed with costs to the respondents.

The judgment and decree of the learned trial Magistrate are hereby upheld.

**Dated at Fort Portal this 27th day of April, 2012**