Haruna Serunjogi v George William Kijjambu (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2002)

Court of Appeal · [2005] UGCA 78 · 2005 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Civil appeal and cross-appeal from a High Court judgment in a land dispute

Decision

Appeal partly allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; High Court orders upheld except the compensation order for improvements which was set aside

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal partly allowed the appellant's appeal and dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal. It held that the appellant's father, lacking title and guardianship power over land registered in the appellant's name when he was a minor, had no capacity to sell buildings on the land, since buildings form part of the land. The respondent, having known since 1983 that no valid title could pass to him, was a trespasser not entitled to compensation for or removal of improvements; that order was set aside. The respondent did not qualify as a bonafide occupant because the registered owner had challenged his occupation. Mesne profits were correctly denied because, though pleaded, they were not specifically pleaded or proved as special damages.

Facts

The appellant was the registered owner of Plot No. 387, Kibuga Block No. 18 at Natete, Kampala, land bought by his mother and registered in his name in 1975 when he was about two and a half years old. Between 1976 and 1991, the appellant's father, Ahmed Katende, purported to sell developments on the land to the respondent and attempted to transfer the land itself, apparently handing over the title as security for a loan he failed to repay. The appellant attained majority in 1991 but was serving in the army and returned in 1994, finding the respondent had lodged a caveat and held the title. From 1996 the parties negotiated for sale or lease but failed to agree terms. The appellant obtained a duplicate title in 1999 and sued in 2000. The High Court found the respondent a trespasser, ordered him to vacate, granted a permanent injunction, awarded general damages, but allowed the respondent to remove or be compensated for improvements and declined mesne profits.

Issues

Whether the appellant's father had capacity to sell or transfer buildings on land registered in the appellant's name.
Whether the respondent qualified as a bonafide occupant under the Land Act 1998.
Whether the respondent, found to be a trespasser, was entitled to compensation for or removal of improvements on the land.
Whether the appellant was entitled to mesne profits.
Whether the Limitation Act applied to land matters after the enactment of the Land Act 1998.

Orders

Cross-appeal dismissed.
Appeal partly allowed.
High Court orders upheld except the order awarding compensation for improvements or their detachment, which is set aside.
Appellant awarded 2/3 of the costs of the appeal and of the High Court.

Key headnotes

Land & Property — Buildings as Part of Land — Capacity to Sell

Buildings on land are part and parcel of the land, and a person without title or lawful authority over registered land has no capacity to sell or transfer buildings found upon it.

Land & Property — Registered Proprietor — Transactions by Minor's Father

Under section 56 of the Registration of Titles Act, only the registered proprietor may dispose of an interest in the land; a father who is neither a legal guardian nor holder of power of attorney cannot validly deal with land registered in his minor child's name.

Land & Property — Bonafide Occupant — Land Act 1998

A person does not qualify as a bonafide occupant under the Land Act 1998 where the registered owner challenged his occupation, so that he cannot show twelve years of unchallenged occupation before the coming into force of the 1995 Constitution.

Land & Property — Trespasser — Compensation for Improvements

A trespasser who, knowing he has no valid title, makes improvements on land is not entitled to compensation for those improvements nor to remove them where they have become fixed to and part of the land.

Damages & Quantum — Mesne Profits — Pleading and Proof

Mesne profits are in the nature of special damages and cannot be granted unless specifically pleaded and specifically proved, even where the claim is not statute barred.

Civil Procedure — Appeals — New Points of Law

A Court of Appeal will not entertain grounds of appeal raising new points of law that were not argued before the trial court.

Legislation cited (4)

Registration of Titles Act s.56
Land Act 1998
Limitation Act Cap. 70
Civil Procedure Act s.2

Cases cited (1)

Semakula vs. Mulondo [19851] HCB 29

Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.