Wakilii

Adman Source & Contacts Limited v National Water & Sewerage Corporation (Civil Suit 278 of 2020)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 31 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for damages arising from alleged unlawful removal of billboard
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff with general damages of UGX 40,000,000 and interest

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 High Court held that the defendant's removal of the plaintiff's billboard without prior compensation violated Article 26(2) of the Constitution and constituted unlawful trespass. The defendant's mistaken belief that it had compensated the correct landowners did not render the removal lawful. The plaintiff failed to strictly prove special damages but was awarded UGX 40,000,000 in general damages.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff with general damages of UGX 40,000,000 and interest

Facts

The plaintiff, an outdoor advertising company, entered a tenancy agreement in March 2018 to erect a three-faced billboard on land at Block 216 Plot 2597 at Ntinda, Kampala. In October 2019, the defendant, a statutory water corporation, requested permission to remove and replace the billboard to lay water pipes. The plaintiff provided a quotation of UGX 256,000,000 for removal and reinstatement. Without agreement or payment, the defendant removed the billboard in July 2020. The defendant claimed it had compensated different landowners (proprietors of Block 216 Plot 3722) who advised that they had exercised their right of re-entry against the plaintiff, rendering the plaintiff a trespasser. The defendant paid UGX 32,240,000 to those proprietors. The plaintiff sued for damages, claiming the billboard was on Plot 2597, not Plot 3722. A land surveyor's evidence using Google images and field observation supported the plaintiff's claim that the billboard was located on Plot 2597.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant's removal of the plaintiff's billboard from land comprised in Block 216 Plot 2597 at Ntinda without prior and adequate compensation was lawful?
  2. Whether the defendant is liable to pay UGX 324,000,000 in special damages to the plaintiff?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Defendant's removal of the plaintiff's billboard from land comprised in Block 216 Plot 2597 at Ntinda without prior and adequate compensation declared unlawful.
  • Plaintiff awarded UGX 40,000,000 as general damages.
  • Special damages claim of UGX 324,000,000 denied.
  • Claims for aggravated damages and exemplary damages denied.
  • Interest awarded at 20% from the date of judgment.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Compulsory Acquisition — Article 26(2) — Requirement for Prior Prompt Fair and Adequate Compensation
Under Article 26(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995, no person shall be compulsorily deprived of property except where the taking is necessary for public use and where prior prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation has been made. The use of the word 'shall' makes this requirement mandatory.
Tort Law — Trespass to Land — Elements — Possession as Foundation
To maintain an action for trespass to land, the plaintiff must show: (a) the defendant committed an act of interference with the plaintiff's land; (b) the act was voluntary and direct; and (c) the land was in the possession of the plaintiff. Possession, not ownership, is the foundation of the action. A person in possession under a licence can maintain an action for trespass.
Land & Property — Possessory Rights — Licensee — Right to Sue for Trespass
A licensee in lawful possession of land pursuant to a subsisting licence agreement has sufficient possessory interest to maintain an action for trespass against a third party who interferes with that possession without consent.
Tort Law — Trespass to Land — Mistaken Belief as Defence — Compensation Paid to Wrong Party
A defendant's mistaken belief that it was dealing with the correct landowner, even where the defendant paid compensation to those believed to be the registered proprietors, does not render an otherwise unlawful removal of property lawful. Mistake does not vitiate trespass where the plaintiff had lawful possession.
Evidence — Expert Evidence — Land Surveying — Standard of Proof for Location
A land surveyor's evidence based on Google image searches and field observation without scientific evidence using conventionally accepted surveying methods such as the Universal Transverse Mercator system and precision instruments verified by accredited surveyors may be insufficient to establish precise location with the rigid test of accuracy and authenticity normally required. However, the court may accept such evidence where it forms part of the totality of evidence establishing possession and location on a balance of probabilities.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Strict Proof — Lost Revenue and Property Value
Special damages must be strictly proved, meaning evidence must show particularity in accordance with pleadings and claims must be based on precise calculation. Claims for lost revenue must be supported by evidence of actual earnings or invoices. Claims for property value based on historic purchase price without evidence of current value accounting for depreciation or appreciation are unproven and not awardable.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment — Restitutio in Integrum
The purpose of damages is to restore the plaintiff as far as money can do it to the position the plaintiff would have been in had the wrong not occurred. The court exercises discretion guided by common sense and the judgment of a reasonable person in determining a fair sum to compensate for loss, inconvenience, and financial damage suffered.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (8)

  • Rashida & Anor v Adrisi (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0009 of 2017)
  • Uganda Electricity Board v Stephen Sanya (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
  • Odwong Joseph Ogoro & Anor v Morris Latigo & Anor (High Court Civil Appeal No. 061 of 2018)
  • Justine E.M.N. Lutaaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Co (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Adesina v Ojo (2012) 10 NWLR p.552
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v A.S. Transporters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2024)
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Sekalega (Civil Suit No. 18 of 2009)
  • Great Eastern Hotel Co Ltd v John Laing Construction Ltd & Anor [2005] EWHC 181

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Adman Source & Contacts Limited v National Water & Sewerage Corporation (Civil Suit 278 of 2020) [2025] UGHCCD 31 (27 February 2025)
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.