On appeal from the decision of His Worship Okiror Edmond Okwii, Magistrate Grade One, High Court upheld an oral gift of customary land. Noting that all elements of a gift inter vivos existed and that the fact it was made orally did not negate it.

This was the judgment in Ereu Vincent and Others v Adebo Regina (Civil Appeal No. 076 of 2023) at the High Court of Uganda at Soroti on 25 August 2025, delivered by Hon. Justice Boniface Wamala.

Justice Wamala upheld an oral gift of customary land. Noting that all the elements of a gift inter vivos were present. As evidence showed that the land was given by the donor and received by the donee (respondent), who took possession and cultivated it throughout the donor’s lifetime.

With no queries on the donation from the appellants during the donor’s lifetime, and that the fact the gift was made orally did not negate it.

The Court noted, while citing Oyet Bosco & Anor v Abwola Vincent (Civil Appeal No. 068 of 2016), that customary law requires no writing for the transfer of land, whether by way of sale or gift.

The Court cited Oyet Bosco & Another v Abwola Vincent (Civil Appeal No. 068 of 2016) [2018] UGHCCD 65, affirming that customary law requires no writing for the transfer of land, whether by way of sale or gift.

And that for a gift inter vivos to be perfected, the donor must intend to give the gift, deliver the property, and the donee must accept it.

While the appellants relied on Norah Nassozi & Another v George William Kalule (Civil Appeal No. 005 of 2012 [2014] UGHCFD 13), which held that verbal gifts are not recognized.

Court clarified that that case concerned registered land and registrable interests, a position which, it guided, could not hold in respect of customary land.

Evidence showed the donor gave the land, the donee (respondent) received it, took possession, and cultivated it during the donor’s lifetime, with no queries on the donation from the appellants during the donor’s lifetime.

Court affirmed the Magistrate’s finding that the land was obtained by the respondent as a gift inter vivos.

Other Highlights from the Judgment:

Justice Wamala, observed that, in law, the burden of proof in civil proceedings normally lies upon the plaintiff or claimant. The standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities.

The law, however, goes further to distinguish between a legal burden and an evidential burden

When a plaintiff has led evidence establishing his or her claim, he or she is said to have discharged the legal burden. The evidential burden thus shifts to the defendant to rebut the plaintiff’s claims (see sections 101 and 103 of the Evidence Act).

He rejected some grounds of appeal as too general and offensive to the law governing the drawing of grounds of appeal, because they did not highlight any specific or distinct complaint by the appellant.

He also noted that once the court has found that the decision of the trial court was correct, it cannot dwell on whether the decision occasioned a miscarriage of justice in the absence of any specific complaint.

At the hearing, the appellants were represented by Mr. David Obore from M/s Obore & Co. Advocates.

While the respondent was represented by Mr. George Engwau from M/s Engwau & Co. Advocates.

Source @ Law Development Centre Uganda