|
Citizen Posts
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
KAMPALA: The Court of Appeal in Kampala has upheld a High Court ruling confirming Soroti University as the lawful owner of the disputed land in Aputon Village, dismissing an appeal filed by four residents of Soroti District.
The appellants, Augustine Erimu, William Aceng, Geresem Eotu and Charles Okia, had challenged a March 2023 decision by High Court Judge Henry Peter Adonyo, which dismissed their counterclaim and confirmed that Plot 51, Block 7 in Aputon Village belongs to the university.
The dispute originated in the Magistrate’s Court but was later transferred to the High Court due to jurisdictional limitations. By the time of the transfer, Soroti University had withdrawn its main suit, leaving only the residents’ counterclaim for determination.
In their case, the residents argued that the university had fraudulently acquired interests in Plot 51 and part of Plot 50, which they claimed as customary land. They sought declarations nullifying the university’s title, vacant possession, damages, and a permanent injunction to stop the institution from interfering with their occupation.
They accused the university of unlawfully surveying and titling the land, destroying crops, grading roads through their property with police support, and confiscating farm tools. They also alleged that attempts by local authorities and the Ministry of Lands to resolve boundary issues were blocked by the university.
However, Soroti University denied the claims, maintaining that the land was historically government-owned. It presented evidence tracing ownership from the Teso African Local Government to Teso College Aloet, then to Teso College of Higher Education (TECHE), later to Teso University, and finally to Soroti University under a memorandum of understanding.
The university further argued that a leasehold title had been processed as early as 1996, long before its establishment in 2015, and that no objections were raised at the time.
After losing at the High Court, the residents appealed on five grounds, including claims that the trial judge erred in affirming the university’s ownership, dismissing allegations of fraud, and failing to recognise their customary tenure.
Their lawyer, Richard Omongole, argued that his clients had long occupied the land, citing evidence of homes, farming, and burial grounds. He maintained that customary ownership does not require formal registration and that the university’s title was obtained without recognising their interests. He also challenged the survey process as irregular and conducted without notice.
On the other hand, the university’s lawyer, Phillip Engulu, argued that mere occupation or cultivation does not establish customary ownership without proof of how such rights were acquired under recognised customs. He maintained that the land was government property and that the appellants were unlawful occupants. He also emphasised that the university’s title is protected under the Registration of Titles Act unless fraud is proven.
In its judgment, delivered by Justice Florence Nakachwa with Justices Eva K. Luswata and Stella Alibateese concurring, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that a certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership unless fraud is established.
The court found that the university had demonstrated a clear chain of ownership from government land through successive institutions to its current status. It also ruled that the appellants failed to prove customary ownership, noting that such claims must be supported by evidence of the relevant customs governing acquisition and occupation.
The judges further observed that earlier occupants of the land had been compensated as far back as 1956 and had vacated the area. They concluded that the appellants were among the later occupants who entered the land without lawful authority. On allegations of fraud, the court found no evidence linking the university to any wrongdoing, noting that it neither conducted the original survey nor processed the initial title.
Regarding trespass, the court held that a registered proprietor cannot be considered a trespasser on its own land. Since the appellants failed to demonstrate a superior claim, their case could not succeed. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming Soroti University’s ownership of the disputed land.
SOURCE: URN
If you have a story in your community or an opinion article, let’s publish it. Send us an email via citizenposts24@gmail.com. Follow our WhatsApp Channel HERE to see more of our stories.
