In a ruling that underscores the dangers of double-selling and sloppy land management, the High Court has ordered Masaba Cooperative Union to refund millions of shillings to a buyer after the union sold the same plot twice in Lwakhakha Town Council, Namisindwa District.
Justice Dr. Lubega Farauq delivered the judgment electronically, partially allowing an appeal by Timbiti Yusuf against Masaba Cooperative Union (2nd Respondent) and the 1st Respondent. While the court upheld the Chief Magistrate’s decision declaring the 1st Respondent the rightful owner of the contested land, it faulted the lower court for dismissing Yusuf’s suit entirely and ordered the union to compensate him.
The dispute revolved around Plot 35A (Block C) sometimes referred to as Plot 37A a 50 by 100 feet parcel in Lwakhakha Town Council. Court records show that Yusuf paid the full purchase price of Ugx 5,000,000 in cash to Masaba Cooperative Union, received a formal sale agreement and receipt, but was never given vacant possession.
Yusuf told the court he repeatedly demanded the land, only to find the 1st Respondent had allegedly trespassed, constructed a toilet, and begun erecting a permanent structure. Local authorities failed to resolve the conflict.
In Land Suit No. 16 of 2021 at Bubulo Chief Magistrate’s Court, Yusuf had sought a declaration of ownership, vacant possession, special and general damages, and costs.
The union defended the sale, claiming a clerical error in the agreement (Plot 35A instead of Plot 37) had been corrected via a statutory declaration. They insisted they had handed over the correct plot to Yusuf and had never sold the disputed land to the 1st Respondent.
The 1st Respondent countered that he had occupied the land since 2001 as a leasehold tenant, paid annual premiums, and completed the purchase of Plot 35 around 2016–2017. Witnesses, including union officials, backed his claim of long-standing possession.
The magistrate declared the 1st Respondent the rightful owner of Plot 35A in Muvule Cell but awarded Yusuf Ugx 10,600,000 in general damages against the union, plus 6% interest per annum and costs, for breach of the sale agreement.
Dissatisfied with the ownership ruling, Yusuf appealed to the High Court on four grounds, arguing the magistrate erred in awarding the land to the 1st Respondent and failed to properly distinguish between the plots.
After re-evaluating the evidence, Justice Lubega Farauq made several key findings: Sale agreements for the different plots were executed in different years and at different prices, indicating they were distinct parcels.
Yusuf had produced sufficient documentary evidence to prove he purchased the land.
However, the 1st Respondent’s prior purchase and occupation since 2001 gave him precedence under the “first in time” principle.
The union was found liable for selling the same plot to two different parties.
Claims of plot renumbering after the establishment of the Town Council were not sufficiently supported by evidence or the locus visit.
The High Court upheld the magistrate’s declaration that the 1st Respondent owns the suit land. However, it set aside the order dismissing Yusuf’s suit with costs, ruling that the proven breach by the Cooperative Union could not be ignored.
The lower court’s finding on ownership stands: Masaba Cooperative Union must refund the purchase price of Plot 35A to Timbiti Yusuf, calculated at its current market value, within six months.
-Costs of the appeal awarded to Yusuf, to be paid by the 2nd Respondent.
The judgment was delivered electronically to Counsel Wetaka Bourne (for the Appellant), Counsel Weere Safiyu (for the 2nd Respondent), and Counsel Murana Robert (for the 1st Respondent).
Land disputes continue to plague Uganda, especially in rapidly urbanising areas like Lwakhakha, where weak record-keeping, subdivision errors, and double sales by vendors frequently result in long, costly court battles.
Legal observers say Justice Lubega’s decision strikes a fair balance protecting long-term occupants while holding vendors accountable for their mistakes and shielding innocent buyers through financial remedies.
It remains to be seen whether any party will pursue a further appeal or how the current market value of the plot will be determined for the refund.
Disqus comments error!
Disqus shortname is required to use Disqus comments. Please ensure you have specify a valid registered Disqus shortname.