Mubiru Vs Babirye (Civil Appeal No. 130 of 2011) [2017] UGCA 23 (1 August 2017)

Flynote

Civil Procedure|Appeals and reviews|Property Law|Land|Land Dispute

Case summary

Court considered the appeal and disagreed with decision of the appellate court as erroneous. At first appeal, the point of contention was whether the burden of proof lay on the applicant to prove that he was a bonafide occupant. Court held that since the appellant had only raised a defence and not a counter claim, the appellate judge had erred in shifting the burden of proof unto the appellant. Court accordingly held that the appellant was a customary owner of the portion of land on the suit land. Court allowed the appeal.

---