Muddumba v Kuluse (Civil Appeal 9 of 2002) [2004] UGSC 45 (22 June 2004)

t THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME OF UGANDA AT MENGO (CQ$RAM: ODER, TSEKOOKQ KAROKORA, MULENGA AND KANYEIHAMBA, JJ.S.C.) BETWEEN ERISAFANI MUDDUMBA : : : : :: : : : : : : : : :!:!: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 3 ]::: : APPELLANT AND WILBERFORCE KUTUSE : : : : i : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : RESPONDENT (Appeal from thejudgment ofthe Court ofAPPeal at Kampala (G.M, Okeilo, A,E Mpagi-Bahigeine, and J.P. Berkol il.A) dated 9.4.99 in Civil Appeal No. 8/e8) ( crvlL APPEAL NO 9/2002 JUDGMENT OF ODE& JSC This is a third appeal. It is against the judgment of the Couft of Appeal, dismissing appellant's appeal from the High Court. The High Court had dismissed the appellanfs appeal from a decision of the Grade I Magistrate's Court of Kamuli. The case arose from a dispute over a "Kibanja" piece of land. During 1984, the appellant tried to evict the respondent from the kibanja' The respondent successfully sued him in a Grade II Magistrate's Court at Nawanyago in Civil Suit No. 3/87. The appellant appealed to the Chief Magistrate's Couft in Jinja, in Civil Appeal No. 79.88. On 6/5/91 the Chief Magistrate ordered a retrial. However, on 6.5.91, the same Chief Magistrate, for unexplained reasons, directed the appellant to flle a new suit against the respondent in a Grade I Magistrate's Court at Kamuli. The appellant did exactly that in Civil Suit 10/91. He lost the I \ suit, and appealed to the High Court at Jinja in Civil Suit No. 4191. He lost that appeal, too. Consequently, he appealed to the Court of Appeal which also dismissed his appeal,. He then filed an appeal to this Court beford,leave to appeal had been obtiined from the Court of Appeal as required by section 7 (2) of the ludicature Act. The appeal was struck out. It was subsequently reinstated after leave of the Court of Appeal had been obtained on 3i0l7l100L. When the appeal .was called for hearing on 13/11/2003, the appellant applied to adopt his original memorandum of appeal to this Court. The respondent consented, and the Court granted the application. In this Court the appellant conducted his case personally as a pauper without assistance of counsel. The grounds of appeal are set out in the memorandum of appeal as follows: 2. The Honourable Justices of Appeal erred by not taking the law of limitation Act of Uganda as important and without mind to the period which I have occupied the land in dispute which is over 67 years and I have permanent crops and a permanent house built in 1950. ') "l.The Honourable Justices of Appeal erred in failing to subject evidence adduced in tower court to sufficient fresh and erhaustive scrutiny. 3. The Honourable Justices of Appeal erred for not taking falsehood, contradiction and discrepancy in the respondent's case and of the judgment of Lower Court seriously which caused injustice." Ground 1 of appeal is a repetition of ground of appeal in the Court of Appeal, which was abandoned before that court. The appellant, nevertheless argued that ground, but it was difficult fgr me to make sense of what he said. He partly . , referred to the respondent's evidence in Civil Suit No. 3/87, heard by the Grade ' II Magistrate of Nawanyago, in which the respondent was the plaintiff and the . appellant the defendant. With respect to the appellant, the evidence in that case' is irrelevant to the present appeal, which origlnated from the suit the appellant instituted against the respondent in the Grade I Magistrate's Court in Kamuli. The appellant further submii[ed that the Court of Appeal erred to hotO tfrat tnL respondent had inherited the land in dispute although he did not have a certificate of title to it, and to have accepted the evidence of Amisi, the respondent's DW2 at the trail that he, Amisi had sold the land at Shs: 400/= in 1944, to the respondent's father, Musalirwa, and the respondent inherited the land from his father. This, the appellant contended, contradicted the respondent's evidence that his father, Yusufu Musalirwa, occupied the suit and after the "Kisoko" Chief had asked him for a "Kanzu" and Shs: 300/= sf *61.a the respondent's father paid Shs: 180. In the circumstances, the appellant submitted that the Court of Appeal erred to have accepted the evidence of the respondent's witnesses without scrutinizing it, The appellant further submifted that the Court of Appeal erred to have accepted the respondent's evidence that the appellant got the suit land through the Kyabazinga of Busoga in 1959. In ground 3 the appellant repeated the submission he had made under ground 1, criticising the Court of Appeal for believing the respondent's evidence to the effect, inter alia, that he (the respondent) inherited the suit land in 1964. If that was true, the appellant contended, then the respondent occupied the land for 20 years beforeh&nstituted a suit for trespass against the appellant in the Grade II Magistrate's Court in 1987. 3 r Mr. Ligga, the respondent's learned counsel argued grounds 1 and 3 together. He submitted that the High Court as the first appellate couft in this case was alive to its duty in that capacity and '-subjected the evidence in the case as a whole to a fresh scrutiny, reevaluatEd the evidence and reached its own conclusion as it was entitled to do. .It upheld the trial court on its findings of fact. Learned Counsel contended that the first appellant court fully weighed all the evidence before the trial court and came to the conclusion that the respondent owned the suit land. The Court of Appeal as the second appellate court did the same and upheld the findings of the first appellate court. I shall first consider grounds one and three of the appeal together, and subsequently ground two. On the issue of evidence I must however, point out from the outset that the evidence relevant to this appeal is the one adduced in the appellant's suit before the Grade I Magistrates'Court. The evidence adduced in the respondent's suit in the Grade II Magistrate's court is absolutely irrelevant. This really, is stating the obvious, but it is necessary to do so in view of the appellant's submission I have above referred to. I am unable to agree with the appellant's submissions under grounds one and three of the appeal. With respect to the appellant his criticism of the Court of Appeal that it did not scrutinize the evidence in the case and, by impplication, that if it had done so, it would have rejected the respondent,s evidence and accepted the appellanY[s evidence instead, is unjustified. The Court ofAppealps the second appellate court in this matter. As such, it could only depart from the concurrent findings of fact by the trial Magistrate's Court and the appellate High court if special circumstances justified it doing so. This is trite law on the role of a second appellate court regarding findings of fact. 4 "ft was the above outlined evidence that formed the basis of the learned trial magistrateb judgment In his judgment, he gave reasons why he disbelieved the plaintiff and believed the defendant He came to that decision after considering all the evidence as given by both sides. His reasons are to be found on pages 7 and I of the typed copy of his judgment With due respect to the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant f do not agree with him that when he said that the learned trial magistrate never gave reasons for his decision. f have examined and considered all the evidence on record and I have come to the conclusion that the decision reached by the trial coutt was in no way contrary to the weight ofevidence as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant in this submission." The learned appellant judge also considered alleged contradictions and discrepancies between the respondent's evidence and that of his witness Amisi Balyawangu (DW2) regarding whether the respondent's father paid Shs: 300 or Shs: 400 for the suit land, and regarding when the respondent acquired the disputed piece of land. On this, the learned appellate judge concluded: 5 In his judgment the learned High Court appellate judge properly directed himself on the duty of a first appellate couft as being, inter alia, to subject the evidence as adduced in the trial court to frBsh and exhaustive scrutiny and come to its own conclusion. The learned 'appellate judge then examined in detail the " evidence adduced by the various respective witnesses of the appellant and the . ' respondent, and concluded: I am unable to fault the learned Justices of the Appeal on that conclusion.. Grounds I and 3 of the appeal should, therefore fail. "In his evidence, the plaintiff/appellant told the Court that the defendant/respondent stafted encroaching his land some time in 7984 and that is the date when the toft complained of commenced, Since this suit was fited on sometime on 77/5/91 by then only 5 yearc had expired and that did not attend the provisions of sections 3 and 6 of the limitation Act, As the case arose in tg&4 the plaintiff was not time barred both for recovery of the land and in his action for the tort of trespass. I hold that the learned trial magistrate was wrong in holding that the plaintiff/appellant was caught up by the provisions of the limitation Act. The third ground of this appeal is accordingly up held," 7 The appellant's submission on ground 2 is that the Couit of Appeal never took into aicount the provisions of the limitation Act wherebs the trial Magistrate's Couft did. In his judgments, the learned trial Magistrate framed the issues in the case.. The first issue was whether the plaintiff's action was barred by any law. The learned Grade I Magistrate answered that issue in the affirmative, finding that the plaintiffs claim was barred by section 6 of the Limitation Act. In his appeal to the High Court, the appellant attacked that finding in the third ground of his appeal. The learned appellate judge considered the evidence and the arguments of parties on the issue and concluded: "In his evidence, the plaintiff/appellant told the Coutt that the defendant/respondent stafted encroaching his land some time in 7984 and that is the date when the toft complained of commenced. Since this suit was filed on sometime on 17/5/91 by then only 5 yearc had expired and that did not attend the provisions of sections j and 6 of the limitation Act As the case arose in 7984 the plaintiff was not time barred both for recovery of the land and in his action for the tort oftrespass. I hold that the learned trial magistrate was wrong in holding that the plaintiff/appellant was caught up by the provisions of the limitation AcL The third ground of this appeal is accordingly up held." I am unable to fault the learned lustices of the Appeal on that conclusion. Groundsl and 3 of the appeal should, therefore fail. The appellant's submission on ground 2 is that the Couit of Appeal never took into aicount the provisions of the limitation Act wherebs the trial Magistrate,s Court did. In his judgments, the learned trial Magistrate framed the issues in the case. The first issue was whether the plaintiff's action was barred by any law. The learned Grade I Magistrate answered that issue in the affirmative, finding that the plaintiffs claim was barred by section 6 of the Limitation Act. In his appeal to the High Court, the appellant attacked that finding in the third ground of his appeal. The learned appellate judge considered the evidence and the arguments of parties on the issue and concluded: 7 "f have failed to discover any material discrepancy in the ' evidence as established by the defendantb/respondent? witnesses. Even if .ihere were some minor contradictions, thosb could be explained iway as some of these things happened samb 5O yearc ago, The learned Lady lustice A,E Mpagi - Bahigeine, J.A, wrote the lead judgment with which both the two other members of the Coram in the Court of Appeal agreed. The learned Justirf of Appeal, rightly so in my view, upheld the find.ings of fact by the learned appellate judge to which I have referred in this judgment and concluded thus: "There is overwhelming evidence that the appellant got access to the resPondent's land in 7959 on the preErt of setting up a shop to assist people around as Mn Liiga narrated'. This is when he set up a Permanent house. fhis was through the assistance and influence of the Kyabazinga. The appellant was not allowed or meant to take the whole land. It is important to note that it was the respondent who sued him firct Secondly, the appellant ought to have been able to deftne his boundary with the respondenl but he could not The Paucity of the appettant's evidence tilE the evidence against him. Evidently, this is why counsel said he had a difficult case, No wonder counsel concentrated his altack on the case put fotward by the respondent forgetting the rule of law that the plaintitr wins on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence. Both lower coutB properly and minutely examined the evidence and reached the correct conclusion. f find no merit in the appeal and would dismiss it forth with." 6 The appellanfs appeal to the Court of Appeal was based on three grounds of appeal. The firstground was abandoned. The remaining two grounds concerned alleged contradictions in the evidence of the respondent's witnegses at the trial. The issue of,limitation of time was not raised in the memorandum of that appeal, nor was it canvassed in, or considered by, the Court of Appeal, rightly so in my view. The issue did not arise on appeal because the appellant had failed to prove his case 6n the facts supporting his case. I, therefore find no merit in ground 2 of the appeal, which should fail, In the result, I would dismiss this appeal. On the issue of costs in this appeal, the respondent's learned counsel recalled that the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal as a pauper, but he did not do so in appealing to this court. The learned counsel, nevertheless, suggested that there should be no order for costs. I accept the suggestion, and would make no order for costs. Before I leave this case, I would like to comment on the highly irregular procedure with which the Chief Magistrate who handled this case dealt with it. The case went before her as Civil Appeal No. 79188 in Jinja. She heard and allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial as follows: 'Accordingly the appeal is allowed and a retrial is herewith ordered to enable both patties to be heard. It is further ordered that the suit be ftled in a Magistrate's Coutt at Kamuli and same to be heard by a magistrate Grade ff at Kamuli station." One year later, the record reads: "6/5/97 both parties present Chairman RC III Mn Waibi and Moses Kalngu Secretary RC Ifi both parties and they 8 Signed Mwonsha F. (Mrs) Chief Magistrate 6lslgt There is no explanation regarding who moved the Court on 6l5l9L; in what capacity the chairman and secretary R.c III attended court on that occasion; why a new suit should have been instituted in stead of an order made for a retrial of the original suit; why the new suit should be instituted by Mudumba, who was the original defendant in the suit before a Grade II Magistrate; and why the new suit should be instituted before a Magistrate Grade I and not before a Magistrate Grade II if it was proper for a new suit to be instituted. with the greatest respect to the chief Magistrate concerned (as she then was) this was a very strange procedure. Fortunately, it appears to have caused no miscarriage of justice to any of the parties. As the other members of the court also agree that the appeal should fail and with the order I have proposed, the appeal is dismissed and there is no order for costs. Date at Mengo this zz r^a lune, 2004. 9 have been advised to open up a new suit as the order of this court was on 6/2/90. The party which appeated in the name^of Mudumba shoutd institute a case in Graie f court Kamuli as soon as possible," A.H.O. ODER, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT. THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT MENGO GIVIL APPEAL No. 9 0F 2002 BETWEEN ERIASAFANI MUDDUMBA APPELLANT AND JUDGMENT OF TSEK ooKo JSC: [41 appeal from the Judgment.of the Sourt of Appear at Kampara.(okelro, Mpagi- Bahigeine and Berko, JJ.A.) dated 9h Apri!, lggg in civit Appeat No.e oi tsbal judgment prepared by my learned broth I agreed that the appeal should be dism I have read in advance the er, The Hon. Justice Oder, JSC and issed with no order as to costs. Delivered at Mengo this .......day of .W.N. kooko L 2004. usti f the Supreme Court (GORAM:ODER, TSEKOOKO, KAROKORA, MULENGA AND KANYETHAMBA, JJ.S.C.) .; WILBERFORCE KULUSE RESPONDENT THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT MENGO (CORAM: ODER, TSEKOOKO, KAROKORA, MULENGA, I{ATWEIHAMBA, J. J. S. C.J CTVIL APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2OO2 ERISAFANI MUDDUMBA : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : APPELLANT WILBERFORCE KIILUSE : : : : : : : : : :: : : : :: : : : : : : : : : : RESPONDENT [Appeal from the ludgment of the Courl of Appeat at Kampala (G.M. Okello, A.E. Mpagi-Bahigeine and J.P. Berko, J.J.A.) dated 9/4/99 in Ciuil Appeal No. 8 of 19981 JUDGMENT OF KANYEIHA MBA. J.S.C. I have read in draft the judgment of m1. learned brother, Oder, J.S.C., and I dismissed. I also agree s,,-appeal shqu tz<--2s-@Ll aD E- a ree that thi *o *u,, ld be ,2004 S ropose Dated at Mengo this ..LZ dav of ,d {^^^u /rr*^!4) 4 G.W. EIHAMBA JUSTICE OF TH SUPREME COURT BETWEEN AND THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGAI{DA AT MENGO CORAM: (ODER, TSEKOOKO, KAROKORA, MITLENGA, KAI{YEIHAMBA, JSCI, BETWEEM ERISAFANI MUDDUMB/\= == = == = == _ = =IppBLLANT AND (Appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal at Kampala (G.M. Okello, A.E. Mpagi-Bahigeine and J.p. Berko, J.A.) dated I I 4 199 in Civil Appeal No. 1998) JUDGMENT OF A.N. KAROKORA JSC I have read in draft the judgment prepared by my learned brother, Oder J.S.C., and I agree with him that this appeal should be dismissed. I also agree with the orders he has proposed. AtJ Dated at Mengo this day o r/,{-- 2004 -r--- \- A.N. Karokora JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME C OURT CIVIL APPEAL NO.9 OF 2OO2 WILBERFORCE KITLUSE= == = = == ==_==IIIISPONDENT ^^a^ry BETWEEN 2004. J.N.Mulenga JUSTICE OF THE S UPREME COURT I have read in draft the judgment prepared by my learned brother, Oder JSC, and I agree with him that this appeal should be dismissed. I also agree with the orders he has proposed. Dated at Mengo this -Z?="d f THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA . IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT MENGO ., CORAM: (ODER,TSEKOOKO,I(AROKORA, MULENGA, . I(ANYEIHAMBA, JSCI CTVIL APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2OO2 ERISAFANI MUDDUMIIfl ================IpPELLLANT AND WILBERFORCE KULUSB===============f,IESpONDENT (Appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal at Kampala ( G.M. Okello, A.E. Mpagi-Bahigeine and J.P. Berko, J.A) dated9/4199 in Civil Appeal No. 1998) JUDGMENT OF J.N.MULENGA, JSC. Ja.*..-z-