Kampala, Uganda: The Court of Appeal in Uganda’s capital, Kampala, has ruled that oral land contracts are enforceable as long as there is clear part performance and mutual agreement between parties.
The landmark judgment that could reshape Uganda’s property dealings stemmed from a long-standing dispute between former minister Israel Mayengo and businessman John Lwalanda over a 2009 oral land purchase agreement.
On September 30, 2016, Justice Eva Luswata ruled in favour of Lwalanda, prompting Mayengo to appeal. In their August 11, 2025, ruling, Justices Musa Ssekaana, Dr Asa Mugenyi and Stella Alibateese upheld Luswata’s judgment, noting that oral agreements can be binding even without written contracts. They cited precedents in Kobaku Associate v. Owusu and Stanley Bainebabo v. Abaho Tumushabe.
Justice Ssekaana, who wrote the lead judgment, held that Mayengo’s attempt to rescind the agreement was an “afterthought,” stressing that both parties had demonstrated part performance.
“The negotiations matured into an enforceable oral agreement despite absence of a signed contract… specific performance is the appropriate remedy,” Ssekaana ruled.
The justices emphasized that land carries special value, making damages an insufficient remedy compared to specific performance. They absolved Justice Luswata of any wrongdoing, saying her order of specific performance was justified in law and equity.
City lawyer Abdul-Noor Kinene welcomed the ruling but flagged a potential contradiction with the Contracts Act, which requires agreements exceeding sh500,000 to be in writing.
“By equity, it is a good decision. However, it conflicts with the Contracts Act that demands every agreement above sh500,000 must be in writing,” Kinene said.
Background
In 2009, Mayengo orally agreed to sell Lwalanda half an acre of land at Muyenga (Kyadondo Block 244 Plot 2611) for sh110 million plus land worth sh60 million in Bukasa. Lwalanda paid sh50 million and surrendered his Bukasa land title, after which Mayengo handed him the Muyenga land title and mutation forms.
Mayengo later refused to receive the outstanding balance or sign transfer forms, prompting Lwalanda to sue for specific performance. In his defence, Mayengo argued that negotiations were incomplete and that the Bukasa land was unsolicited.
Source: Daily Express
