The High Court has reiterated the strict legal requirements for the validity of gifts inter vivos, expanding the criteria for determining such gifts by adding a fourth condition to the existing legal framework. This new condition emphasizes the importance of land tenure and proper transfer instruments.
Furthermore, the court reaffirmed the Supreme Court's decision that trespass to land occurs when a person makes an unauthorized entry onto land, thereby interfering with another person’s lawful possession of it.
The court also emphasized that any unauthorized entry onto land by a third party constitutes trespass.
FACTS
The respondents filed a case in the Isingiro Grade 1 Magistrates' Court seeking a declaration that the disputed land belonged to them and that the appellants were trespassers. They argued that their late father, Matovu Abubakari Kadede, had distributed his customary land in 2003, granting them ownership of the suit land, but the appellants unlawfully occupied it in 2005. The respondents sought an eviction order, a permanent injunction, general damages, and other reliefs.
The appellants, who are siblings of the respondents, denied these claims, arguing that their late father never allocated the land to the respondents. They requested that the case be dismissed with costs.
The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring the appellants as trespassers, ordering their eviction, issuing a permanent injunction, and awarding UGX 5,000,000 in general damages plus the costs of the suit.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellants appealed to the High Court on several grounds, including errors in evaluating evidence, failure to conduct proper proceedings, and alleged miscarriage of justice. They sought to overturn the lower court's decision and have the appeal allowed with costs.
The Appellants raised eight grounds of appeal wherein they contended that the trial Court was wrong in finding that the suit property was distributed to the Respondents by the late Kadede Matovu
HOLDING
The High Court has emphasized that in determining the validity of a gift inter vivos, courts must consider the nature of land tenure and the legal instruments required for transfer.
Citing the precedent of Walusimbi Jennifer & Others v. Bulezi Ali HCT Civil Suit No. 291 of 2021, where it was held that gifting titled land cannot be equated to gifting a kibanja interest.
The court clarified that:
📌For titled land under freehold, mailo, or leasehold tenure, a duly signed transfer form is required under the Registration of Titles Act.
📌For untitled land under customary tenure, a duly signed agreement is necessary to effect the transfer.
The court suggested adding a fourth condition to the existing legal framework, on the legal principles governing gifts inter vivos making the full criteria:
📌The donor must have an intention to give the gift.
📌The donor must transfer the gift by executing a legally appropriate instrument based on the nature of land ownership.
📌The donor must deliver the property to the donee.
📌The donee must accept the gift.
These principles were outlined in Matovu & Others v. Igga & Others HCT-MC 17 of 2024 [2024] UGHC 990 and further reinforced in Kamadi Lugonvu v. Sauda Nandawula & Others Civil Appeal 135 of 2014 [2019] UGCA 400, where the Court of Appeal held that “the issue of a gift inter vivos requires establishing the instrument used to transfer the property.”
The respondents argued that their late father, Kadede Matovu, gifted them the suit land in 2003. Their claim was supported by:
The testimony of PW1 Nassansa Fatuma and PW2 Nabukera Mariam, who stated they were present when the land was given and later planted fruit trees on it.
A distribution document dated 17/12/2003 (Exhibit PE1), was presented with an English translation in court.
Conversely, the appellants contested the validity of PE1, claiming their father distributed the land to them in 2012. Their evidence relied on:
The testimony of DW1 Matovu Rashid and DW2 Hakim Muwonge, challenged the authenticity of PE1.
A document dated 26/01/2012 (Exhibit DE1) titled “Revoking/Not in Agreement with Any Document that I Distributed My Properties and My Land.”
The court, upon analysis, determined that:
The appellants failed to provide any document proving that their father gifted them the land in 2012. DW1 Rashid admitted under cross-examination: “I have no document showing my father gave me the suit land.”
DE1’s language suggested an attempt by the late Kadede Matovu to revoke an earlier distribution, implicitly acknowledging that a prior gift (PE1) had indeed been executed.
Findings on Trespass
The court ruled on whether the appellants’ occupation of the suit land constituted trespass. It relied on the Supreme Court’s definition in Justine E. M. N. Lutaaya v. Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd SCCA No. 11 of 2002:
“Trespass to land occurs when a person makes an unauthorized entry upon land, thereby interfering with another person’s lawful possession of that land.”
The evidence established that:
The respondents had been in possession of the land since 2003, having planted fruit trees thereon.
The appellants entered the land in 2012 without any valid instrument proving ownership.
The appellants unlawfully destroyed the respondents’ fruit trees.
Given these findings, the court upheld the trial court’s decision that the appellants were trespassers and had no valid claim to the suit land. It agreed with HW Muhangi Gibson’s judgment, awarding UGX 5,000,000 in general damages to the respondents.
Conclusion
This ruling reinforces the strict legal requirements for gifts inter vivos and the necessity of proper documentation in land transactions. It also affirms that once a gift inter vivos is properly executed and accepted, the donor loses any rights to revoke it. Consequently, any unauthorized entry onto the land by a third party constitutes trespass.
Read more
.jpg)
Comments