Overview The Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts' decisions, rejecting the appellant's defense of "claim of right" and their claim that their actions were intended to preserve the estate.
The appellant was not a beneficiary of the estate, but they included their name in the land title, excluding the rightful heir (Pwl).
Facts The appellant was convicted of intermeddling with the estate of the late Bangirana James, taking possession of land without authority, and was fined and ordered to pay compensation and vacate the land. The High Court upheld the conviction but vacated the compensatory orders and ordered the appellant to vacate the land. The appellant appealed, arguing that the High Court erred in confirming the conviction and sentence, treated the appeal as a civil suit, and wrongly ordered immediate eviction. The respondent conceded to the second and third grounds of appeal, but opposed the first ground. Legal Representation At the hearing of this appeal, Mr. Shwekyerera Philmon appeared for the appellant, while Ms. Nabagala Grace Ntege, Chief State Attorney in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, appeared for the respondent Arguments for the Appellant The appellant's counsel argued that the appellant had a genuine claim of right to the land, backed by witnesses and documents, and their actions were intended to preserve the estate, not intermeddle. They contended that ownership disputes should be resolved in civil court, not criminal court. The counsel also challenged the appellate court's eviction order, which was not an issue at trial or appeal. The respondent conceded to the latter two grounds, acknowledging the error in the eviction order. Arguments for the Respondent The respondent's counsel argued that the appellate judge correctly evaluated the evidence and found that the appellant had no genuine claim to the estate and was not seeking to preserve it.
The appellant's inclusion on the list of beneficiaries was questionable, and they excluded the rightful heir from the title. The defense of preservation does not apply in cases of property grabbing.
The appellant's actions were for personal gain, constituting intermeddling. The respondent conceded that the appellate court erred in ordering eviction, as it was not an issue at trial or appeal, and the court acted as if it were a civil dispute.
Opinion of the Court.
The court reviewed the evidence and found that the appellant's defense of claim of right and intention to preserve the estate were dismissed by both the trial magistrate and the first appellate court.
The trial magistrate noted that there was no family meeting to determine how the estate would be managed, and the document presented (DE1) was a procedural document outlining how children who sold their land would receive their money, but was drafted by a few individuals with selfish interests. The first appellate court also found that DE1 did not confer any authority on the appellant, and the appellant's inclusion as a registered co-owner of the land was suspicious.
The court addressed the defense of claim of right under Section 7 of the Penal Code Act, which requires honesty and lack of intention to defraud. However, the appellant's actions were found to be devoid of honesty, and they excluded the rightful heir from the title. The appellant's dealings, including occupying and earning rent from part of the estate without authority, also pointed to intermeddling. The court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial magistrate and confirmed by the first appellate court, but partially succeeded in the appeal.
The order of the first appellate court for the appellant to vacate the land was set aside, as it was not an issue at trial or appeal, and the court acted as if it were a civil dispute.
The respondent conceded that Section 11 of the Administrator General Act does not give the court additional powers beyond the sentence to order eviction.
.jpg)
Comments