Ssajjabi v Namutebi & Another (Civil Appeal 5 of 2020) [2023] UGSC 65 (20 February 2023)

Full Case Text

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

*Coram: Mwondha, Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, Tuhaise, Chibita, Musoke;* **IISC**

#### **CIVIL APPEAL NO. 05 OF 2020**

ARTHUR SSAJJABI ....................................

Versus

1. CATHERINE NAMUTEBI MUYIZZI (Administrator of the Estate of Muyizzi Samuel) 2. BIKAALI CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP....................................

[Appeal from a Judgment of the Court of Appeal at Kampala (Kakuru, Kiryabwire and Madrama, JJ. A.) dated 27th February, 2020 in Civil Appeal No.25 of 2017]

# Judgment of Percy Night Tuhaise, JSC

This is a second appeal arising from the decision of the Court of Appeal which upheld the decision of the High Court in Civil Suit No. 39 of 2006 and consequently dismissed Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2017. , ar

## **Background of the appeal**

The brief background of this appeal, as can be deduced from the record of appeal, is that the late Muyizzi Samuel was the proprietor of the land

comprised in LRV 3012, Folio 10, Block 425, Plot 20 at Kyazanga, now Lwengo District, measuring 120 acres. In 1996, the late Muyizzi by deed donated the suit land to Bikaali Christian Fellowship, the 2nd respondent in this appeal. The appellant who was the Pastor in the $2nd$ respondent at that time and a son to the late Muyizzi, was entrusted with the responsibility to hold and develop the land for the $2nd$ respondent. When the appellant ceased being the Pastor of the 2nd respondent, in 1999, the late Muyizzi again by deed transferred responsibility over the suit land to Pastor Bikaali John, who was then the Head Pastor of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent took possession of the suit land and started using it Pan but the late Muyizzi remained as the registered proprietor.

In 2006 the appellant introduced two foreign nationals to the late Muyizzi as people who wanted to sponsor developmental programs for the 2nd respondent, but on condition that they got proof that the land belonged entirely to the $2^{nd}$ respondent.

The late Muyizzi instructed the appellant to go to his advocates and instruct them to draft a formal deed of donation of the land to the $2nd$ respondent in order to facilitate registration of the land into the names of the 2nd respondent. However, the appellant did not honour the father's instructions. He instead instructed the advocates to draft the deed of donation in his favour, dated 15th May 2006. He induced the late Muyizzi and made him sign the deed, together with blank transfer forms, without

$\mathbf{2}$

reading through. Subsequently, the appellant was registered as proprietor of the suit land.

As a result of the appellant's actions, the late Muyizzi, together with the 2nd respondent, instituted High Court in Civil Suit No. 39 of 2006 against the appellant. They sought against the appellant a declaration that the purported deed of donation made between him and the appellant on 15th May 2006 was invalid, an order cancelling the appellant's certificate of title for the land comprised in LRV 3012, Folio 10, Block 425, Plot 20 at Kyazanga, now Lwengo District, general and punitive damages, and costs FRA of the suit.

The learned trial Judge entered Judgment in favour of the plaintiffs (now respondents), and made the following declaration and orders:-

- a) a declaration that the deed of gift between the plaintiff and the defendant, dated $15^{th}$ May, 2006, is invalid and of no effect whatever; - b) an order requiring the Commissioner, Land Registration, to cancel the certificate of title of the defendant for LRV 3013 Folio 10, Plot 20, Block 425 at Kyazanga; - *c) an order requiring the defendant to hand over his certificate of title for LRV* 2013, Folio 10) Plot 20 Block 415, at Kyazanga, to the Commissioner for Land Registration, not later than 14 days from the date of delivery of this judgment; - d) an order requiring the Commissioner, Land Registration, to register the suit property in the names of Bikaali Christian Fellowship;

## *e) an order awarding the costs of this suit to the plaintiff.*

The appellant, being dissatisfied with the said decision, appealed to the Court of Appeal, which, in a majority decision, maintained the findings of the learned trial Judge, and dismissed the appeal. The appellant was dissatisfied with the decision of the first appellate court, hence his appeal to this Court, based on grounds that:-

- 1. The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they failed to properly re-evaluate the evidence on the record of the donation agreement of 1996 relied on by $2^{nd}$ respondent by which the responsibility of the Land was vested in the Appellant thus Ran upholding orders of trial court. - 2. The learned Justices of Court of Appeal erred in law when they upheld the learned trial judge's orders for cancellation of the appellant's leasehold land title volume 3013 folio 10 Block 425 plot 20 pursuant to transfer forms dated $18^{th}$ May 2006 as Gift from his late father Samuel Muyizzi. - 3. The learned Justices of Court of Appeal erred in law when they upheld the learned trial judge's orders for cancellation of the name of the Appellant from lease hold title which was pursuant of *donation agreement of 1996 from which residual proprietor was to be transferred to the Appellant to enforce God's work.* - 4. The learned Justices of Court of Appeal erred in law when they upheld the learned trial Judge's orders of registering the land to $2^{nd}$

respondent in contrary to the covenants and agreements of the lessor.

- 5. The learned Justices of Court of Appeal erred in law when they upheld the learned trial Judge's orders of registering the land in the $2nd$ respondents' name which do not have evidence of deed of gift on record. - 6. The learned Justices of Court of Appeal erred in law when they upheld learned trial Judge's orders of registering land in 2nd *respondent of which he is not Chairman or proprietor.* - 7. The learned Justices erred in law when they upheld judgment of trial court thus occasioning a miscarriage of justice to the Appellant. - 8. The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in RA *dismissing the appeal.*

### **Management of the appeal**

This appeal was initially heard on 9th November 2021 where each party adopted their written submissions on record, and judgment was reserved on notice. However, due to a number of factors beyond the control of this Court, the appeal was re-heard by a re-constituted panel on 5th May 2023, where each party re-adopted their earlier submissions on record, and judgment was again reserved on notice.

#### Representation

At both the initial hearing and the re-hearing of the appeal, the respondents were represented by Mr. Kaggwa Michael while the appellant represented himself.

## **Parties to the Appeal**

At the High Court, this matter was commenced in 2006 by the late Muyizzi Samuel as the 1st plaintiff. Following his demise in 2017, litigation of the matter at the Court of appeal was taken over by Catherine Namutebi Muyizzi, as administrator of his estate.

## **Appellant's Submissions**

The appellant made submissions on only grounds 1 and 2. However, before submitting on the said grounds, he re-echoed and submitted at length on the issues raised at the High Court. He emphasized that he was the registered proprietor of the suit land and that his registration on the title was not fraudulent since the land was donated to him as a gift inter vivos. He further contended that the respondent's plaint and submissions at the lower courts were tainted with fraud and were misleading to court in a bid to steal a valuable property.

On ground 1, the appellant faulted the learned Justices of Appeal for failing to properly re-appraise the evidence on record as required under Rule 30 of the Court of Appeal Rules.

$\mathbf{6}$

He submitted that the Court of Appeal judgment was based on isolated exhibits in particular exhibit P3 and D2 which were not among the agreed list of documents. He submitted that the document of 1999 referred to by the learned Justices as " $P3$ " is listed as " $P1$ " on the record; and further, that the judgment also quoted exhibit D2 as "deed of donation of 1996" yet what existed on record was "an agreement for donation of land" dated $31/08/96$ . He added that the respondents' plaint was also filed with an unsigned and undated copy of a deed of gift. According to him, this deed did not form part of the record, and what formed part of the record was the signed deed of gift dated 15/05/06 filed by the appellant. He argued that, on that basis, the judgment of the learned Justices of Appeal RAT occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

On ground 2, the appellant submitted that the learned Justices of Appeal erred when they upheld the orders of the trial Judge to cancel the appellant's title. He argued that the land donation process to the appellant started in 1996 through an agreement for donation of land dated 31/08/96 which placed responsibility of the land on the appellant; that this was followed by a deed of gift dated 15/05/06 between the late Muyizzi and the appellant donating the same to the appellant as a gift; and that, subsequently, transfers were executed and the appellant was registered as proprietor. He submitted that the late Muyizzi was aware of what he was doing.

The appellant argued that the deed of gift, the transfer forms, and the appellant's certificate of title were all in agreement with the wishes of the late Muyizzi to donate the land as a gift inter vivos to him. He submitted that it was therefore a miscarriage of justice to order registration of the land into the $2^{nd}$ respondent's name whose claim is baseless.

The appellant accordingly invited this Court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

# **Respondents' submissions**

Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, opposed this appeal. He submitted that the land was a leasehold for forty-four years from 1966; that the lease expired in 2010 and that, therefore this appeal was overtaken by events since the subject matter had long expired. $\mathcal{A}$

Counsel also argued that the appellant was trying to re-open his case for re-trial by recapping the issues as raised in the High Court; further, that the issues raised offended rule 98 of the Rules of this Court since they were not included in his memorandum of appeal. He submitted that the appellant was therefore barred from raising such issues at this point, and he invited court to disregard the same.

In reply to the appellant's submissions on ground 1, Counsel contended that the impugned exhibits formed part of the record and were tendered in court by consent. He further submitted that, whereas among the list of documents to be relied on at trial was an undated and unsigned copy of the deed of gift between the appellant and the 1st respondent, the said document was not tendered in court at trial, neither did the trial court or the Court of Appeal make reference to it.

Counsel argued that the appellant failed to demonstrate how the learned Justices erred in re-evaluating the evidence. He submitted that the learned Justices of Appeal properly re-evaluated the evidence and found that the land was donated to the $2^{nd}$ respondent.

On ground 2, Counsel submitted that the appellant did not substantiate how the learned Justices erred in their finding. He argued that, having found that the registration of the appellant onto the title was fraudulent, and that the purported deed of gift of 15/05/2006 upon which the appellant based his claim over the land was invalid, the learned Justices of Appeal were justified to uphold the trial court's judgment and order cancellation of the appellant's name from the certificate of title. Counsel, RK on that basis, invited this Court to dismiss the appeal.

## **Resolution of the Appeal**

The memorandum of appeal filed in respect of this appeal contains the 8 grounds of appeal listed above. The appellant submitted only on grounds 1 and 2 of the appeal. The same approach was adopted by learned Counsel for the respondents in his submissions in reply, after expressing an assumption that the appellant had abandoned the other grounds of appeal. The appellant maintained the same approach in his submissions in rejoinder, by covering only grounds 1 and 2 of his appeal. I will also accordingly deliberate on grounds 1 and 2, since the appellant, in his submissions, and in his rejoinder, only covered the said two grounds, and the respondents, in their reply, also only submitted on the same grounds. I will take it that the appellant abandoned the other grounds of appeal and concentrated only on grounds 1 and 2. The two grounds of appeal submitted on are:-

- 1. The learned Justices of Appeal erred in law when they failed to re-appraise the evidence on the record thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice. - 2. The learned Justices of Appeal erred in law when they upheld the learned trial judge's orders for cancellation of the name of the appellant on the leasehold title LRV 3013 folio 10 Block 425 plot 20 pursuant to transfer forms dated 18th May 2006 as Gift from his late father Samuel Muyizzi.

This Court is alive to its role as a second appellate court, as set out in Kifamunte Henry V Uganda Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of $\vec{R}$ 1997, that:-

"on a second appeal, a second appellate court is precluded from questioning the findings of fact of the trial court, provided that there was evidence to support those findings, though it may think it possible, or even probable, that it would not have itself come to the same conclusion, it can only interfere where it considers that there was no evidence to support the *finding of fact, this being a question of law."*

Regarding the status of suit land, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that at the time of filing this appeal, the subject matter had since expired in 2010, because the suit property was a leasehold interest. Ideally, in the given circumstances, the appeal would be overtaken by events, and the property would, in essence, revert back to the lessor who is the Uganda Land Commission. The appellant, in his submissions in rejoinder, stated that that, indeed, the lease expired, though further decisions in the land are awaiting the outcome of the court process. $\overline{Q}$

I have carefully analyzed the circumstances and background of this appeal as highlighted above. Given the unique circumstances of the case, for instance, that the claim of proprietorship of the suit property arose in 2006 vide Civil Suit No. 39 of 2006; that the suit was heard in 2007; and that judgment of the trial court was delivered in 2015, five years after the expiry of the lease. In the appellant's appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the trial Judge, the issue of the status of the subject matter was not raised by any party, neither did the respondent cross appeal. The said issue cannot therefore be raised at this point by the respondents. In the interests of justice, the two grounds of appeal maintained by the appellant will be considered.

## Ground 1

In ground 1, the appellant faults the learned Justices of Appeal for having failed to re-evaluate the evidence as required under Rule 30 of the Court of Appeal Rules. He claimed that the suit property was donated to him as

a gift inter vivos. The Court of Appeal found that he fraudulently transferred the property to himself. He argued that the Court of Appeal's judgment was based on isolated exhibits, such as P3 and D2, which were not part of the record. He argued, further, that the respondent filed an unsigned and undated copy of the deed of gift.

The record shows that the learned Justices of Appeal, while re-evaluating the evidence to sustain the claim against the appellant, made reference to the trial judge's finding which reflected the exhibits in contention. At page 9 and 10 of their judgment the learned Justices of Appeal observed as follows:var

"The trial judge entered judgment in favour of the respondents finding that there was not the slightest doubt that the appellant secured registration of the suit property in his personal names through fraud. The learned trial judge premised the foregoing findings on the evidence adduced for the plaintiff particularly the testimony of PW1 Samuel Muyizzi and PW3 Joseph Luswata. PW1 testified in Court that the appellant was his *biological son whom he entrusted the process of ensuring a donation of the* suit property to the $2^{nd}$ respondent. He further testified that the appellant *had instead made the relevant donation to himself contrary to his directions* given to him. The learned trial Judge was thoroughly impressed with the *testimony of PW1, he stated as follows at page 120 of the record;*

*Court saw PW1 in the Court. It assessed him to be an intelligent,* steady and truthful person though he was of advanced age. His

testimony was very calm and totally consisted (sic). He was (sic) biological father of the defendant. He expressed remorseful inner pain that he had been forced by the defendant's conduct to sue him in court of law. His evidence was believed by court to be entirely truthful. According to him he donated the suit property vide exhibit D2 in 1996 to Bikaali Christian Fellowship. He confirmed the donation in 1999 vide exhibit P3, after the defendant had ceased to be the pastor of that church. The plaintiff's instruction to the defendant was to inform his advocates to prepare a formal deed of gift, inter vivos, to Bikaali Christian Fellowship. But instead, the defendant instanced the advocates to prepare the deed in favour of himself...' par

PW3 Joseph Luswata's evidence further enhanced the $2^{nd}$ respondents case. He testified that he was an advocate with the firm of advocates which prepared the deed of donation to the appellant and that he was well known to the $1st$ respondent and the appellant. PW3 testified that, the appellant went to his chambers asking him to prepare the relevant deed of donation in respect of the suit property. The appellant also presented to him already signed transfer forms. PW3 testified that the appellant's instructions were at variance with his father' instructions which had been communicated to *PW3 requesting that he prepares an agreement whereby the late Muyizzi would donate land to their church.* PW3 *further testified that, the appellant* presented GWAM church instead of the 2nd respondent church as the church to which the suit property would be donated. This was clearly not the church which the late Muyizzi intended to donate the suit property to

*but PW3 testified that he never bothered to cross check the information with his client.*

It is our considered view that the evidence adduced for the respondents was *sufficient to sustain the claim against the appellant and we find no reason* to fault the learned trial Judge for finding as he did. The evidence showed that the appellant had fraudulently transferred the suit property against the interests and instructions of the late Muyizzi. The appellant's evidence was largely untrue as the learned trial Judge noted that the appellant's propensity to lie was so deep-rooted in him and could not be exhausted. PW3's evidence crucially established that the appellant's allegations were *untrue as far as he alleged that the late Muyizzi and the appellant had gone* to PW3's law firm to sign the deed of donation. PW3 established that the appellant had gone to the said law firm alone with blank transfer forms and instructions to sign a deed of donation to GWAM instead of the $2^{nd}$ respondent. In the view of the late Muyizzi and PW3's evidence, such Per *conclusions were justified.*

Accordingly, we uphold the learned trial Judge's findings that the appellant procured the donation of the suit property to himself fraudulently and to cancel his name from the relevant certificate of title." (underlined for emphasis).

The record also shows that the exhibits in contention formed part of the record. The minor typographical errors such as "Deed" of donation instead of "agreement" for donation, regarding exhibit D2 (1996 donation),

and exhibit " $P3$ " instead of " $P1$ " (1999 donation) did not reflect a change in donation of the property, and, therefore, in my considered opinion, were not fatal. The intention of the 1st respondent, as revealed by his testimony, was clearly to donate the suit property to the 2nd respondent, and not to the appellant personally. Further, the record of appeal does not indicate that the lower courts made reference to the undated and unsigned copy of the deed of gift. What was referred to was the dated deed of gift, of $15/05/2006$ , filed by the appellant. Jan

Thus, based on the foregoing, I find that the appellant has not demonstrated any miscarriage of justice occasioned to him regarding the exhibits. The record, as well as the judgment of the Court of Appeal as extracted above, clearly shows that, in resolving the appeal before them, the learned Justices of Appeal were alive to their duty as a first appellate court, and were well aware of the principles relating to fraud, before reaching their own conclusion that the appellant procured the donation of the suit property to himself fraudulently. In the circumstances, based on the adduced evidence on record, I find no reason to fault the learned Justices of Appeal on their finding.

Ground 1 of this appeal fails.

## Ground2

In ground 2, the appellant faults the learned Justices of Appeal for upholding the trial Judge's order for cancellation of his name from the leasehold title when the suit property was a gift inter vivos from his late father.

In the Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition at page 710, a gift *inter vivos* is defined to mean:

"...gift of personal property made during the donor's life time and delivered to the donee with the intention of irrevocably surrendering control over the property."

In essence, a gift *inter vivos* is a voluntary conveyance of land, or transfer of goods, from one person to another, made gratuitously, and not upon any consideration, monetary or otherwise. The essential elements of a valid gift *inter vivos*, are:-

The donor has to have capacity to donate the gift. The person must be of $i.$ sound mind and must be 18 years of age and above.

Jan

*The donor must intend to give the gift immediately.* ii.

There should not be any consideration monetary or otherwise. iii.

- There has to be delivery of the gift to the donee which could be made iv. *constructively or symbolically in instances where physical delivery would be impractical.* - The donor must sever his own interest in the property thus relinquish $V$ . control over the property to the donee. - *There must be acceptance of the gift by the donee.* vi.

It is crucial to appreciate the intention of the parties and their conduct, sufficient to establish the passing of the gift to the donee. The adduced evidence on record indicates that the donation of the suit property was a gift inter vivos in favour of the 2nd respondent (Bikaali Christian Fellowship), and not to an individual or the appellant in particular. This is evident from the testimony of the late Muyizzi (PW1) who was seen as a truthful witness by the trial court, and his testimony was clearly that he had donated the suit property to the $2nd$ respondent; that he only entrusted the responsibility of the suit land to the appellant as chairman, for purposes of executing God's work on the land, as shown in exhibit D2.

The adduced evidence on record further shows that, in 1999 when the appellant ceased to be a Pastor for the $2nd$ respondent, the $1st$ respondent, who was PW1 at the hearing of the suit, revoked the authority vested in the appellant as Chairman over the land, and he entrusted responsibility to a one Pastor Bikali John as Chairman of the committee of the 2nd respondent, to which he would also hand over the transfer forms (exhibit **P1**) for the land. RA

The adduced evidence on record clearly shows that the late Muyizzi had no intention of irrevocably surrendering control over the suit property to the appellant as he wants this Court to believe. The impugned deed of gift dated $15/05/2006$ between the appellant and the late Muyizzi, which the appellant sought to rely on as proof that the late Muyizzi had donated the suit land to him as a gift *inter vivos*, was found to be invalid in the concurrent findings of the lower courts. This therefore would render the registration of the appellant on the title invalid as well.

The evidence of PW1 and PW3 sufficiently established that the late Muyizzi never intended to donate the land to the appellant. Instead, the appellant orchestrated a fraudulent scheme to deprive the respondents of the suit property. He misrepresented to the late Muyizzi that the foreigners he had brought to him were willing to assist the $2^{nd}$ respondent in its development programs, but wanted formal proof that the land belonged to the $2^{nd}$ respondent. This prompted the $1^{st}$ respondent to entrust the appellant with the process of ensuring that the suit property belonged to the $2nd$ respondent. He instructed the appellant to secure a formal deed of gift to the $2^{nd}$ respondent through the $1^{st}$ respondent's lawyers in order to enable registration of the land in the Church's name. The appellant however acted contrary to his father's instructions and made the donation to himself *vide* the impugned deed of gift of $15/05/2006$ , which he subsequently used to register himself as proprietor of the suit property. $\sqrt{N}$

The lower courts were therefore right to order for cancellation of the appellant's name from the title, having found that it was fraudulently obtained. A court cannot protect title to land obtained fraudulently simply because a person is a registered proprietor.

Taking into account the evidence regarding the process of donating the disputed property, and having found that the appellant's registration on the title was attained fraudulently, it is conclusive that there was lack of intention by the deceased to make gift inter vivos of the suit land to the appellant.

In the circumstances, I would not fault the learned Justices of Appeal for the findings they made against the appellant. I accordingly find no reason to depart from the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Ground 2 of this appeal therefore fails.

In the result, this appeal fails on each of the grounds argued, and I would dismiss it with costs to the respondents.

$2024$ Dated at Kampala this..

Burandal

Percy Night Tuhaise **Justice of the Supreme Court**

Delivered as directed by the How Jushens ABabyé

$20/02/024$ .

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

(Coram: Mwondha, Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, Tuhaise, Chibita, Musoke, $JJ. SC$

### CIVIL APPEAL NO. 05 OF 2020

ARTHUR SSAJABI...................................

### **VERSUS**

## 1. CATHERINE NAMUTEBI MUYIZZI (Administrator of the Estate of Muyizzi Samuel) ... RESPONDENTS 2. BIKAALI CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP

(An appeal arising from the judgment of the Court of Appeal at Kampala Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2017, before (Kakuru, Kiryabwire and Madrama, JJA) dated 27th February 2020)

### **JUDGMENT OF MWONDHA, JSC**

I have had the benefit of reading in draft the judgment of my learned sister Hon. Tuhaise Percy Night, JSC, I agree with her analysis and the decision that the appeal would be dismissed with costs to the respondents.

### **Decision of Court: -**

Since all the members on the Coram concur with the lead judgment, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Dated at Kampala this $\frac{1}{20}$ day of $\frac{1}{2024}$ .

Thuesaul

Mwondha **Justice of the Supreme Court.**

### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

[CORAM: MWONDHA; TIBATEMWA-EKIRIKUBINZA; TUHAISE; CHIBITA; MUSOKE; $JJ. S. C. I$

### CIVIL APPEAL No. 05 OF 2020

### **BETWEEN**

# ARTHUR SSAJJABI ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

### AND

#### 1. CATHERINE NAMUTEBI MUYIZZI $15$ (Administrator of the Estate of Muvizzi Samuel) 2. BIKAALI CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

*[Appeal arising from the judgment of the Court of Appeal at Kampala before (Hon.* Justices: Kakuru, Kiryabwire and Madrama, JJA) dated 27th February 2020 in Civil 20 Appeal No. 25 of 2017.1

### JUDGMENT OF TIBATEMWA-EKIRIKUBINZA, JSC.

I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of my learned sister, $25$ Hon. Justice Percy Tuhaise, JSC. I agree with her analysis and conclusion that the appeal fails and should be dismissed with costs to the Respondents.

Dated at Kampala this $\frac{20th}{20th}$ day of $\frac{1}{2024}$ .

Libalenure

HON. JUSTICE PROF. LILLIAN TIBATEMWA-EKIRIKUBINZA JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT.

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

# IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

(Coram: Mwondha; Tibatemwa-EkirikubinzaTuhaise; Chibita; Musoke; $\prod$ S. C.)

## CIVIL APPEAL NO: 05 OF 2020

#### **BETWEEN**

## ARTHUR SSAJJABI ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

### AND

# 1. CATHERINE NAMUTEBI MUYIIZI (ADMIN. OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE MUYIZZI) 2. BIKAALI CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP :::::: RESPONDENTS

[An appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal at Kampala (Kakuru, Kiryabwire and Madrama, JJA) in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2017 dated 27th February, 2020]

### **JUDGMENT OF CHIBITA, JSC.**

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment prepared by my learned sister, Justice Tuhaise, JSC. I agree with her that this appeal should be dismissed. I also agree with the orders she has proposed.

Dated at Kampala this .... 20th Dated at Kampala this ....................................

astice Mike J. Chibita JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 05 OF 2020

ARTHUR SSAJJABI::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

## **VERSUS**

# 1. CATHERINE NAMUTEBI MUYIZZI (ADMINISTRATOR OF THE **ESTATE OF THE LATE SAMUEL MUYIZZI)** 2. BIKAALI CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP::::::::::::::::RESPONDENTS

(Appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal (Kakuru, Kiryabwire and Madrama, JJA) in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2017 dated 27th February, 2020)

## HON. LADY JUSTICE FAITH MWONDHA, JSC **CORAM:** HON. LADY JUSTICE PROF. LILLIAN TIBATEMWA -**EKIRIKUBINZA, JSC** HON. LADY JUSTICE PERCY TUHAISE, JSC HON. MR. JUSTICE MIKE CHIBITA, JSC HON. LADY JUSTICE ELIZABETH MUSOKE, JSC

# **JUDGMENT OF ELIZABETH MUSOKE, JSC**

I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of my learned sister Tuhaise, JSC, and I concur with her conclusion that this appeal be dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Dated at Kampala this .................................... ...... day of $\overline{Fz}$ $2023$

**Elizabeth Musoke**

Justice of the Supreme Court