The High Court in Mbale has partially upheld an appeal in a long-running land dispute arising from Bubulo, ordering a cooperative union to refund a buyer after finding evidence of a disputed double sale of land in Lwakhakha Town Council.
The case stems from Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2024 filed by Tata Sam against Timiti Yusuf and Masaba Cooperative Union, following a decision of the Bubulo Chief Magistrate’s Court in Land Suit No. 16 of 2021.
Court records show that the appellant purchased what he believed to be Plot 35A (Block C) in Lwakhakha Town Council for UGX 5 million, under a sale agreement executed with Masaba Cooperative Union.
He told court that after completing payment, he was denied vacant possession, and that a structure had already been erected on the land by the first respondent.
However, the cooperative union disputed the claim, arguing that the land sold to the appellant was actually Plot 37 and not Plot 35A, attributing the discrepancy to a documentation error. It further maintained that the appellant had already been allocated land and that any confusion arose from administrative changes in plot numbering.
The first respondent, meanwhile, insisted he had lawfully occupied the land since 2001, later formalising ownership through purchase from the cooperative union.
The Chief Magistrate’s Court dismissed the appellant’s case and held that the first respondent was the rightful owner of the disputed land. The court further advised the appellant to seek a refund from the cooperative union rather than pursue ownership of the land.
Dissatisfied, the appellant challenged the ruling, arguing that the trial court failed to distinguish between different plot numbers and wrongly dismissed his claim.
In its judgment, the High Court noted contradictions in the evidence presented by both parties, particularly regarding the identity, numbering, and subdivision of the land in dispute.
The court observed that while the first respondent was in actual occupation of the land, the cooperative union failed to adequately clarify how the same parcel had allegedly been sold under different plot descriptions to different buyers.
Justice Dr. Lubega Farouq held that although the principle of “first in time” favoured the first respondent’s occupation and earlier claim, the appellant had proven that he entered a valid sale agreement and paid consideration.
The court further found that the cooperative union bore responsibility for the conflicting transactions and resulting dispute.
The High Court upheld the lower court’s finding that the first respondent retains ownership and possession of the land. However, it set aside the order dismissing the appellant’s claim with costs.
The court instead ordered Masaba Cooperative Union to refund the appellant’s UGX 5 million purchase price within six months and awarded costs of the appeal to the appellant.
The ruling brings partial closure to a dispute that exposed inconsistencies in land allocation and documentation within Lwakhakha Town Council, leaving the cooperative union liable for the financial loss suffered by the buyer.
English 