HIGH COURT AFFIRMS THAT A CHALLENGE TO ESTATE DISTRIBUTION MUST BE BROUGHT VIA REVOCATION OR AMENDMENT OF THE GRANT. ONE CANNOT CIRCUMVENT THIS THROUGH A TRESPASS SUIT.

Brief of the case Beyanga v Baryezo & Another (Civil Appeal 28 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 180 (15 April 2025)

Area of law: Family Law- Estate Planning- Land Law

Topic: Trespass claims, Validity of a gift inter vivos.

Introduction

A plaintiff cannot assert ownership of land already distributed to other beneficiaries under letters of administration without challenging the grant through proper probate proceedings.

A challenge to estate distribution must be brought via revocation or amendment of the grant. One cannot circumvent this through a trespass suit.

The court further affirmed that oral claims to land, especially family land, must be corroborated by consistent and credible evidence. The appellant's contradictory testimony and that of his own witness undermined his claim.

A trespass claim will fail where ownership is not proven—the mere occupation of land or planting of trees does not establish ownership in law.

Brief Facts

This was an appeal arising from the judgment of the Chief Magistrate’s Court. The Appellant (Plaintiff in the lower court) sued the Respondents (Defendants and his siblings) for trespass and malicious damage to property, specifically for cutting down 300 pine trees on land he claims was gifted to him by their father in 1975.

The land in question located at Nyamurengyere, Ntaraga village, Nyaruhanga Parish, Ikumba Subcounty, Rubanda District. The cause of action arose on February 7, 2014, when the Respondents’ agents allegedly entered the land and destroyed trees that the Appellant claims to have planted.

The Respondents denied trespass, asserting that the land was legally distributed to them under a grant of letters of administration for their late father's estate. They argued that the land was located at Hanturo, a place on the same hill as Nyamurengyere, and formed part of their lawfully inherited estate.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Case

The land was gifted to him inter vivos by his father in 1975.
He had been in quiet possession of the land since then.
The Respondents' agents entered without his consent and cut down his pine trees, constituting trespass and malicious damage.
The trial court failed to evaluate the evidence of the gift, his long-term possession, and misapplied legal standards regarding ownership and gifts inter vivos.

Respondents’ Case

Denied trespassing and asserted that they were using land properly distributed to them in accordance with a probate distribution document.
The land in dispute was part of their father’s estate, lawfully inherited.
The Appellant’s claim was based on contradictory and uncorroborated evidence, and no valid gift was ever made to him.
The Appellant had previously denied the very land forming part of the estate, undermining his claim.
Adverse possession and limitation were not properly pleaded or relevant to the claim for trespass.

Issues for Determination

Whether the Respondents or their agents trespassed on the Appellant’s land.
Whether the Respondents’ agents cut the Appellant’s pine trees.
What remedies were available to the parties.

🧷 HOLDING

The High Court upheld the decision of the trial magistrate, finding that the Appellant failed to prove ownership of the disputed land.

The land was determined to be part of the estate of the deceased parents, Tiburisio and Koreta Kazenga, and had been lawfully distributed to the Respondents under a grant of letters of administration.

The Appellant’s oral claim to ownership based on a purported gift from his father, unsupported by credible evidence or legal procedure, was insufficient to ground a claim for trespass.

⚖️ RULE OF LAW

The Court clarified that a valid gift requires intention, delivery, and acceptance. The law in Uganda does not require such a gift to be in writing, although written documentation provides evidentiary certainty, as seen in Matovu v Igga, HCT-5-CV-MC17 of 2024.
The court observed, a challenge to estate distribution must be brought via revocation or amendment of the grant. One cannot circumvent this through a trespass suit.
The court reaffirmed that to succeed in trespass, a claimant must prove legal ownership or possessory rights as seen in Sheikh Mohammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises, Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1987.
The court observed that adverse Possession & Limitation are defenses—not causes of action. A plaintiff cannot rely on them to found a trespass claim.
Lastly, where parallel suits concerning the same subject matter exist, courts may intervene to prevent duplicity and misuse of judicial process.

📌 KEY TAKEAWAYS

Oral claims to land, especially family land, must be corroborated by consistent and credible evidence. Contradictory testimony by the Appellant and his own witness undermined his claim.
A plaintiff cannot claim ownership of land already distributed to other beneficiaries under letters of administration without challenging the grant through proper probate proceedings.
A trespass claim will fail where ownership is not proven; the mere occupation of land or planting of trees does not establish ownership in law.
Verbal gifts of land are not invalid per se, but require clear evidence of intention, delivery, and acceptance—elements which the Appellant failed to establish.
Litigants must carefully select the correct legal procedure. Inheritance disputes arising from estate distribution should be brought as probate or administration causes, not civil suits.

📝 Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed, with only one ground (regarding the legal misstatement about gifts inter vivos requiring writing) succeeding. However, this did not affect the outcome.

Read the full case below