An important issue in the case related to the citizenship of respondents. Article 237(2)(c) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda restricts the ownership of land in Uganda for non-citizens to leasehold tenure only. Appellant however stated that the 3rd to the 7th respondents are South Sudanese refugees, which was supported by, amongst others, documents that appellant had obtained from the Office of the Prime Minister of Uganda, as well as from representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Uganda.
The court had to assess whether documents of the Office of the Prime Minister and the UNHCR could be used as evidence. The court indicated that under Ugandan law, all private documents regularly kept as forming part of the acts or records of official bodies are classified as public documents. The UNHCR, moreover, can be considered an ‘official body’. As such, the court concluded that the documents obtained by the appellant from the Office of the Prime Minister and the UNHCR can be used as evidence.
On the basis of the documents, the court held that the 3rd to 7th respondents indeed are refugees. As such, they could not own land in Uganda, and the court at first instance erred in deciding in favour of the 3rd to 7th respondents.
On the basis of the other evidence submitted, the court concluded that the 1st and 2nd respondents have failed to prove their case on a balance of probabilities, while appellant did prove his counterclaim. The court moreover indicated that appellant is entitled to damages for respondent’s trespass on his land.
Determination of land ownership; proof of refugee status; evidentiary value of UNHCR documents; land ownership by refugees
The case concerns a conflict on the ownership of a plot of land. According to the appellant, he inherited the land from his father, who had bought it, and respondents have taken the land from him by the use of force. According to respondents, however, the land was acquired by the first appellant’s father, and the appellant began trespassing on the land when the appellant's proposal to exchange the plot for another one was rejected. Respondents had sued appellant for a declaration that they were the owners of the plot of land. The judge at first instance had ruled in favour of respondents. Appellant subsequently appealed against that ruling, which resulted in the present judgment.
The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the court at first instance is set aside. Appellant is declared to be the rightful owner of the plot of land at issue and is awarded damages. The court also gave an order of vacant possession of the land and permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, employees or persons claiming under them from interference with the appellant’s quiet possession and enjoyment of the land.
The court relied on the Ugandan Constitution to hold that refugees are excluded from owning land in Uganda. Being refugees and hence non-citizens of Uganda, the third to the seventh respondents are precluded by article 237 (2) (c) of The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 and section 40 of The Land Act, from holding land in Uganda under customary tenure. Further, the court relied on rules of evidence under Ugandan law. In order to assess whether documents obtained by appellant from the Office of the Prime Minister and the UNHCR could be used as evidence of respondents’ refugee status, the court referred to national rules on evidence, as well as to the role attributed to the UNHCR by the Ugandan Refugee Act.