Registered Trustees of South Rwenzori Diocese v Kabukero Farmers Co-operative Society Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 254 of 2018) [2025] UGCA 213 (25 June 2025)

Full Case Text

## 5 THE RE BLIC OF UGANDA

## IN THE COURT OF APPEAL O UGANDA HOLDEN AT FORTPORTAL

[Coram: Dr. F. Zeija, B. Cheboion, E. Nambago,JJA.l

# CIVIL NO. 2s4 0F 2018

## THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES O SOUTH

10 RWENZORI DIOCESE:::::::::::::::::: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ] : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :APPELLANT

#### VERSUS

## KABUKERO FARMERS CO-OPE IVE SOCIETY LTD RESPONDENT

(An appeal from part of the Judgm t of the High Court of Uganda at Fort Portal before Hon. Justice Oguko Anthong k deliuered on the 1Ot, day of May, 2O18 in ls Ciuil Appeal No.053 of 2016)

#### G OF COURT

# Introduction

This is a second appeal against pa of the judgment of the High Court of Uganda at Fort Portal before Justice Oyuk 20 I 6 delivered on lOft day of May, Anthony Ojok, J in Civil Appeal No. O53 of 20 018.

## Background

The background of the appeal as es ablished from the record of Court is that the respondent instituted a suit against the appellant for trespass on land measuring approximately 4 acres located in 1I , ., .. r' ukero, Karusandara in Kasese District. The

w: )4->-

5 respondent prayed for orders that; granted vacant possession, an orde general damages, interest, costs an t was the lawful owner of the suit land, it be for permanent injunction, special damages, any other relief.

According to the respondent, Church of Uganda, the appellant's 1 10 demarcating the respondent's land to be part of the respondent's co appellant destroyed and demolishe a house of one Manueri Nkurunzi shelters and bricks. The responden on ft January 20O9, members of Kivengenyi cal church destroyed all the boundary marks d trespassed onto 4 acres which were said munal grazing land. That members of the property of the respondent's members to wit, , destroyed trees, fences/barbed wires, calf aileged that it had suffered losses due to the

15 acts of the appellant

The appellant denied all the respo a bonafide occupant of land at Kive The trial Magistrate found that the community and not the respondent 20 that time. That there was no tresp ent's allegations and contended that it was genyi which it has utilized since the l97O's. suit land was given to the appellant by the since the respondent was not in existence at s and the respondent's case was dismissed

- with costs, and a permanent injunc judgment of the lower Court appeal The learned appellate Judge allow of the trial Magistrate. on issued. The respondent dissatisfied with to the High Court of Uganda at Fort Portal. the appeal in part and set aside the decision - 25 When this Appeal came up for he appellant while the respondent was ng, Mr. Samuel Kiriaghe appeared for the presented by Mr. Joseph Mugarura holding

# s brief for Mr. Ferdinand Tumuhaise.

Reverend Maseruka, the Assistan Land Coordinator of the appellant was in Court so was Mr. Kabesere, the presentative of the respondent was also in Court

Before the Appeal could be heard, unsel for the appellant raised a Preliminary 10 Objection to the effect that the res ndent had no locus to bring the suit from e first place. That this is because the not in existence at the time the suit land which this Appeal emanates in respondent Cooperative Society w was acquired by the appellant. Tha the respondent Cooperative Society had not been registered then as it only acqu red legal existence h 2012. That it therefore,

15 had no locus standi to commence e suit.

Counsel for the respondent submitt d that it was not the respondent which gave the land to the church but individu farmers who were not party to the suit and the Appeal. Counsel for the respon nt conceded to the fact that the respondent Cooperative Society, having not be n in existence at the time, had no locus to 20 institute legal proceedings against t eappellant

Paragraph 3 of the amended Mem randum of Appeal states that the learned Judge of the High Court erred in w when he allowed the appeal in part and awarded a half of the taxed costs t the appellant when he had found that the respondent had no locus to sue.

25 We have read the judgment of the ppellate Judge and at page 8 he held and rightly so in our view that the Appel 3l ant (Kabukero Farmers' Cooperative Society

--.-/

Ltd) had no locus to sue on behalf of its members without Powers of Attorney. He $\mathsf{S}$ however, went ahead to hold that; "Though the acts done by its members before its incorporation cannot be invalidated and disregarded just because the Appellant *was not in existence then.*"

This addition in our view was erroneous because a non-existent person cannot act in anyway.

We are in agreement with counsel for the appellant that indeed it should have been the individual members of the respondent who are said to have given land to the appellant to institute legal proceedings against the appellant. The respondent had no locus standi to bring this suit.

We therefore, uphold the preliminary objection. This appeal is allowed. The 15 respondent shall pay the costs of this appeal and in the courts below.

We so order Dated at Fort Portal this.... ..dav of .. 2025 Dr. Flavian Zeija 20 DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE **Cheborion Barishaki** JUSTICE OF APPEAL 25 Esta Nambayo JUSTICE OF APPEAL 4 | Page