Case Law About Gift Intervivos
Case Law About Gift Intervivos
Case Law About Gift Intervivos
Delivery of the gift must be actual or constructive made during the donor’s
lifetime in a manner that depicts that the donor has stripped themselves of all
dominion over the gift. See for example my decision in Namugambe
Balopera & Ors Vrs Frederick Njuki &Anor HCCS No. 341/2013
(unreported). And to illustrate that point further, Todd & Watts In Cases
& Materials on Equity & Trusts 3rd Ed at 130 states as follows
For a gift to be perfect, the donor must actually complete the disposition of the
subject matter in favour of the intended donee or execute a formal “deed of gift”.
Only then can a volunteer or donee enforce it. Intention not to be mistakenly
inferred, must be joined by action.
2. The said donation is construed in law as a gift inter vivos. In the case of The
Registered Trustees of Kampala Archdiocese v Nabitete Nnume Mixed
Co-operative Farm Limited(HCCSNO.1559/2000)[2017]UGHCLD 4;
It was held that a gift intervivos is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary8 thEdition
at page 710 as;
“…a gift of personal property made during the donor’s lifetime and delivered to
the donee with the intention of irrevocably surrendering control over the
property.”Following the decision in Joy Mukobe vs. Willy Wambuwu HCCA
No. 55 of2005, the court held that;“…for a gift intervivos to take irrevocable
root, the donor must intend to give the gift, the donor must deliver the property,
and the donee must accept the gift.
Delivery of the gift must be actual or constructive made during the donor’s lifetime
in a manner that depicts that the donor has stripped themselves of all dominion
over the gift. See for example my decision in Namugambe Balopera & Ors Vrs
Frederick Njuki & Anor HCCS No. 341/2013 (unreported).And to illustrate
that point further, Todd & Watts In Cases &Materials on Equity & Trusts
3rdEd at130 states as follows
For a gift to be perfect, the donor must actually complete the disposition o
the subject matter in favour of the intended donee or execute a formal “deed
of gift”. Only then can a volunteer or donee enforce it. Intention not to be
mistakenly inferred, must be joined by action.
There appears to have been no contention from Mubiru and Lunkuse that the suit
land was sold to Kaliisa and that Mubiru was fully aware of it. His contention was
that Namusoke had previously given him a portion of it, showed him the
boundaries during1994,and allowed him to construct on it and reside there with his
family, which he did. Infact, the evidence that Mubiru constructed on the suit land
was not seriously challenged in cross examination and it wasDW3’s testimony that
in 2006 when Namusoke