The High Court in Kabale has dismissed an appeal by John Ainembabazi, who had claimed ownership of land on which the children of the late Fred Karyabakabo buried their father, ruling that the alleged sale was invalid because the deceased lacked the mental capacity to understand what he was signing.
Justice Karoli Lwanga Ssemogerere upheld an earlier decision of the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Kabale, which had found that Ainembabazi took advantage of an elderly and sick man and failed to prove that he lawfully bought the land.
According to court records, Ainembabazi testified to the lower court that on July 15, 2012, he purchased a piece of land in Kitumba sub-county, Kabale district, from Fred Karyabakabo for Shs 15 million. He said he paid the money, signed a written agreement, and took possession of the land.
Trouble started on May 27, 2016, when the children and relatives of Karyabakabo appeared on the land and buried his body there. Ainembabazi said he was shocked. He claimed the land belonged to him and accused the family of trespass.
He sued them in the Chief Magistrate’s Court, asking for a permanent injunction, general damages, and an order to exhume the remains of Karyabakabo’s son, Tumwesigye Wilfred, who had been buried on the land.
The respondents, led by Topista Ndabahwereze, denied selling the land. They said their father never sold it and that the land formed part of his estate.
After hearing witnesses, the Chief Magistrate dismissed Ainembabazi’s case. The magistrate found that the alleged sale was not made in good faith and concluded that Ainembabazi had “used the advantage of age and sickness of his employer to grab his land.”
The court ruled that there was no valid sale agreement, that the land still belonged to the deceased’s estate, and that the family members were not trespassers. Ainembabazi was ordered to pay costs.
Unhappy with the decision, Ainembabazi appealed to the High Court, raising 10 grounds. His lawyers from Lawtons Advocates argued that the magistrate relied on speculation about the mental state of the deceased without medical evidence.
They insisted that the sale agreement was genuine, that police forensic experts had ruled out forgery, and that the law presumes adults have the capacity to contract. They cited the Contracts Act, arguing that the court should have respected the freedom of parties to contract.
They also argued that Karyabakabo had taken a loan from Centenary Bank shortly before his death, which they said showed he was mentally sound.
Lawyers for the respondents from Beitwenda and Co. Advocates supported the magistrate’s decision. They accepted that the agreement existed but argued it was invalid because the deceased lacked mental capacity.
They relied on the exception under the Evidence Act, which allows courts to look beyond written agreements where there is fraud, lack of capacity, or other vitiating factors. They told the court that Karyabakabo was extremely old, sick, and unable to understand the nature of the transaction.
Family members testified that he could not recognise relatives, needed constant care, and sometimes behaved abnormally. One witness told the court that the deceased “could even eat soap” due to his illness.
Justice Ssemogerere said his duty as a first appellate judge was to re-examine all the evidence and reach an independent conclusion.
He found serious contradictions in Ainembabazi’s testimony. Although Ainembabazi said he bought the land, he admitted that after the burial, he never informed any family member about the alleged sale.
The judge also noted inconsistencies about where Ainembabazi lived, how he paid rent, and how he raised the purchase money. During a visit to the land, the court found no rental structures and observed that boundary markers looked recently planted.
Ssemogerere explained that mental capacity under Ugandan law means “the independent and informed cognitive ability to understand the nature and effects of one’s decisions and actions.”
He ruled that medical documents were not mandatory to prove a lack of capacity. Testimony from close family members was enough on a balance of probabilities.
“The statements by DW1, DW2, and DW3 show the deceased lacked the mental capacity… to make an independent judgment to execute a sale agreement,” Ssemogerere said.
The court concluded that the agreement was void because the deceased did not understand what he was signing.
“The sale agreement of the suit land between the appellant and the deceased is voided for lack of [mental] capacity ,” Ssemogerere ruled.
