Bura & Others v. Basimwa (P.C.) Civ. App. 239-M-69; 21/2/70; Bramble J.

Bura & Others v. Basimwa (P.C.) Civ. App. 239-M-69; 21/2/70; Bramble J.

The respondent was a Nyarubanja tenant of Kabachwezi. He went to Uganda and left the shamba far at least 14 years before he brought the suit. Appellant No. 1 was the heir of Murefu, the brother of the deceased Kabachwezi. Murefu sold the shamba in question to appellants’ No. 2 and No. 3. The issue therefore was whether Murefu had any title to the shamba. It was also proved that the respondent had abandoned his shamba and that the landlord resumed possession.

            Held: (1) “By rules XX and XXI of the Nyarubanja Tenancy Rules Cory & Hartnoll, p. 133 it would seem that a landlord has no absolute right to repossess land where a tenant abandons it. It must be by agreement with the tenant subject to confirmation by the Native Court. These rules applied at the time the landlord resumed possession. The provision quoted by the learned district magistrate on the basis of which he reversed the primary court’s judgment related to a pledge of Family Tenure and not Nyarubanja tenancies but is more or less the same as the rules first mentioned and they are to the effect that a man cannot be dispossessed on account of neglect of a plantation.” (2) “The limitation period commences on the day when the right of action first accrued or on the day when the Limitation Rules came into operations, whichever is the later. In this case it commenced in 1964 and action instituted in 1968 and the respondent was in time. Under the Customary Law Kabachwezi had no right to take possession and hence Murefju, his heir, has no title to the shamba. This sale to appellant’s No. 2 and No. 3 did not give them any title and the district court’s decision in favour of the respondent was right.” (3) Appeal dismissed.