Wakilii

Attorney General & Another v Byaruhanga & 2499 Others (Consolidated Appeals No. 246 & 375 of 2021)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 19 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated civil appeals from a High Court judgment awarding damages for wrongful eviction
Decision
Consolidated appeals dismissed with costs; the High Court judgment and its awards of special damages (UGX 52,658,658,633) and general/exemplary damages (UGX 4,000,000,000) upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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 dismissed the consolidated appeals of the Attorney General and Kasese District Local Government. It held that occupiers in continuous, unchallenged possession for about 19 years acquired title by adverse possession, so it was irrelevant whether the original presidential allocation was lawful or whether the land was a gazetted forest reserve or national park. Expert valuation opinion under section 43 of the Evidence Act is not confined to surveyors registered under the Surveyors Registration Act; a retired District Agricultural Officer who was specially skilled was competent. Special damages pleaded by reference to an annexed valuation report were sufficiently pleaded and proved, and the damages awards disclosed no error warranting interference.

Facts

Around 1971 the respondents and their parents were resettled on land in Kichwamba Sub-County, Kasese District, on the directives of then-President Idi Amin and the Kigezi District Administration to relieve overpopulation and land fragmentation. They built homes, cultivated crops, reared livestock, paid graduated tax and lived there for about 19 years. In 1990 agents of the appellants — police, local administration police, district defence units and security personnel — forcibly evicted them, destroying houses, crops and livestock, assaulting them, and transporting some to Ibuga refugee camp where children died of starvation and disease. The appellants admitted the eviction but contended the respondents were encroachers on a gazetted central forest reserve, later a national park, who were lawfully evicted. The High Court at Fort Portal found the eviction wrongful, declared the respondents were not encroachers, and awarded special damages of UGX 52,658,658,633 (a valuation discounted by 50%) and general, exemplary and punitive damages of UGX 4,000,000,000, with interest and costs. The valuation underlying the special damages was prepared in 2015 by a retired District Agricultural Officer.

Issues

  1. Whether a ground of appeal raised in the memorandum of appeal but unsupported by any submissions is treated as abandoned.
  2. Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the respondents had lawful and equitable interests in the suit land.
  3. Whether a person not registered under the Surveyors Registration Act could competently give expert valuation opinion.
  4. Whether the special damages awarded were specifically pleaded and proved.
  5. Whether the award of general, exemplary and punitive damages was legally justified and warranted appellate interference.

Orders

  • The consolidated appeals are dismissed.
  • The respondents are awarded the costs of the appeal.
  • Civil Application No. 397 of 2021 (Byaruhanga John & 2499 Others v Kasese District Local Government) is struck out as overtaken by events.
  • Ground three of Civil Appeal No. 375 of 2021 (limitation) is struck out as abandoned.

Key headnotes

Land & Property — Adverse Possession — Title by long, continuous and unchallenged occupation
A person in continuous and unchallenged physical occupation of land for at least twelve years acquires title by adverse possession, and the lawfulness of the original entry — including whether the allocating authority had power to allocate and whether the land was gazetted as a forest reserve or national park — becomes irrelevant.
Evidence — Proof of Facts — Oral evidence in place of documentation
All facts, except the contents of documents, may be proved by direct oral evidence, so the allocation of land need not be proved exclusively by documentary evidence.
Evidence — Expert Opinion — Qualification of a valuation expert
Under section 43 of the Evidence Act the test for an expert is whether the witness is specially skilled in the relevant subject; registration as a valuation surveyor under the Surveyors Registration Act is one but not the exclusive mode of acquiring valuation expertise, and non-registration does not bar a specially skilled witness from giving expert opinion.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Pleading special damages by reference to an annexure
Special damages may be pleaded by reference to a document annexed to the plaint containing the particulars of the claim, and facts appearing in such an annexure are regarded as appearing in the plaint itself.
Damages & Quantum — Appellate review — Interference with an award of damages
An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's award of damages unless the trial judge acted on a wrong principle of law or the amount awarded was so high or so low as to be an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages to which the litigant is entitled.
Damages & Quantum — General and exemplary damages — Distinct awards
General damages and exemplary damages serve different purposes — the former being compensatory and the latter marking the court's disdain for high-handed and outrageous conduct in abuse of authority — and should be awarded as distinct sums rather than lumped together.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Abandonment of grounds not argued
A ground of appeal in respect of which no legal arguments or submissions are made is treated as having been abandoned by the party concerned and is liable to be struck out.

Legislation cited (14)

  • Evidence Act s.43
  • Evidence Act s.56(1)(b)
  • Evidence Act s.58
  • Evidence Act s.59
  • Evidence Act s.110
  • Surveyors Registration Act s.4
  • Surveyors Registration Act s.15
  • Surveyors Registration Act s.19(3)
  • Surveyors Registration Act s.26
  • Land Act s.59
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.30(1)(a)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.101
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.102(a)
  • Uganda Wildlife (Declaration of Wildlife Conservation Area) (Kibale National Park) S.I. No. 46 of 2003

Cases cited (17)

  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Centre for Health & Human Rights (CEHURD) v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 029 of 2018)
  • Kabuuza v Mukeeze Muwanga (Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2017)
  • Olando Difasi & Ors v Ono Zacharia (Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2016)
  • J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2002] UKHL 30
  • Omito Luka & 5 Others v Attorney General (HCCS No. 0073 of 2004)
  • Jeraj Shariff & Co v Chotai Fancy Stores [1960] EA 374
  • Mparo Ltd v Attorney General (HCCS No. 726 of 1992)
  • Dr. James Ssekalugo v Woodstock Enterprises (HCCS No. 396 of 1992)
  • Sembuya Francis v Allports Services (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1999)
  • Bank of Uganda v Masaba & Others [1999] 1 EA 2
  • Uganda Breweries Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001)
  • Ahmed Ibrahim Bholm v Car and General Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2002)
  • Godfrey Opus v Harvest Farm Seeds Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2012)
  • Muyingo John Paul v Abbas Rugemwa & 2 Others (HCCS No. 229 of 2011)
  • Rookes v Barnard & Others [1964] AC 1129
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.