Retired High Court judge Margaret Oguli Oumo has lost a case in which she sought to recover land she said belonged to her late husband, George Oumo. In a case dating back to 2009, Oguli and her son, Derick Imongit Oumo, claimed that George Oumo had purchased about 3.528 hectares of land in Bukedea County from James Ikorat in 1985.
However, they alleged that the land was later trespassed upon by Obukongori Opiko Charles, who subsequently acquired a title to the property in 2014 before the dispute had been resolved in court. The Oumos argued that the process through which the title was acquired was fraudulent and asked the court to cancel it, grant them vacant possession of the land, and award them Shs700 million in damages.
In her ruling, Dr. Christine Echookit of the High Court Land Division in Kampala held that although George Oumo had purchased the land, he failed to conduct sufficient due diligence to establish whether James Ikorat was the rightful owner. “Margaret Oguli Oumo corroborated the existence of the transaction, the payment of consideration in instalments between 1985 and 1986, culminating in full payment on January 19, 1986, and the preparation of a sketch map following identification of the land.
She further testified that the transaction was witnessed by local leaders and other persons. However, in cross-examination, she conceded that the agreements lacked detailed boundary descriptions and were not formally endorsed or stamped by local authorities. She also acknowledged that the land, though appearing unoccupied, had previously been occupied by the late Joseph Ituba. These concessions weaken the probative value of the transaction in establishing a clear and identifiable interest and raise doubt as to whether the transaction met the requirements of a valid customary transfer,” the ruling reads in part.
The judge added that failure to prove prior ownership by the seller invalidated any subsequent transfer of the land. “The evidence shows that the suit land had previously been occupied and utilised by the family of the late Ituba. Although the plaintiffs contend that such occupation was interrupted during the insurgency, its historical association with another family imposed a heightened duty of inquiry on a prospective purchaser. It is during this period of alleged displacement that the late George Oumo is said to have purchased the land. In such circumstances, reasonable inquiry into the ownership history, including engagement with local leadership and persons associated with the land, would ordinarily be expected,” the judge ruled.
Although the court acknowledged that a land transaction had taken place between George Oumo and James Ikorat, it held that Ikorat had no legal right to transfer customary ownership of the land. The judge said that if Oguli and her son wished to seek compensation, they should pursue it from Ikorat’s estate and not from Obukongori.“Having found that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the late George Oumo acquired any proprietary interest in the suit land from James Ikorat, and further that the allegations of fraud against the defendant were not proved, it follows that the foundation upon which all the remedies sought is premised has not been established.
The remedies sought by the plaintiffs, namely cancellation of title, eviction, permanent injunction, mesne profits, and general damages, are all dependent on proof of a superior proprietary interest. In the absence of such proof, no claim in trespass or for consequential relief can be sustained,” the judge ruled. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs, noting that both sides had verifiable interests in the disputed land-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
