Administrators of the Estate of Sir Edward Mutesa II and others v Dr. Muhammad Buwule Kasasa and Another (Civil Suit No. 2139 of 2016)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The court held that plaintiffs cannot pursue recovery of land and compensation for loss of the same land where the two remedies are not pleaded in the alternative, as this violates the doctrine of approbation and reprobation. Where plaintiffs acknowledged in a subsequent suit that the land had changed hands and been occupied by squatters and bonafide occupants, those parties must be joined to protect their constitutional right to a fair hearing before remedies affecting their interests can be granted.

Outcome

Civil Suit No. 622 of 2003 dismissed following upheld preliminary objection

Facts

The Administrator General filed Civil Suit No. 622 of 2003 on behalf of the estate of Sir Edward Mutesa II seeking recovery of land formerly comprised in MRV 962 Folio 19. The plaintiffs were later substituted. In 2005, the same beneficiaries filed Civil Suit No. 227 of 2005 seeking compensation and damages for loss of the same land. The two suits were ordered consolidated by the Court of Appeal. The 1st defendant raised a preliminary objection that the plaintiffs cannot simultaneously seek recovery of land and compensation for its loss without pleading these remedies in the alternative, as this amounts to approbation and reprobation. The plaintiffs had acknowledged in the compensation suit that the land had changed hands and been encroached upon by squatters and bonafide occupants who were not made parties to the recovery suit.

Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs can seek recovery of suit land and at the same time seek compensation for the same land in consolidated cases.
2. Whether the doctrine of approbation and reprobation bars the plaintiffs from pursuing two inconsistent remedies.
3. Whether third party interests in the suit land require those third parties to be joined before the suit can proceed.

Orders

• Preliminary objection upheld.
• High Court Civil Suit No. 622 of 2003 dismissed in its entirety.
• Costs awarded to the 1st defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Registration of Titles Act s.183
• Judicature Act s.17(2)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 44

Cases cited (4)

• Express Newspapers PLC v News (U.K) Limited and Others [1990] 1 WLR 320
• Dr. Muhamad Buwule Kasasa v The Administrators of the Estate of the Late Sir Edward Muteesa and Others (Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2016)
• Mukisa Biscuits v West End Distributors [1969] EA 696
• Habib Rhemu's Administrators v Esther Kiyingi (High Court Civil Suit No. 575 of 2002)

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.

• Dr Buwule Kasasa v Administrator of the Estate of Late Sir Edward Muteesa 11 and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application 271 of 2023)
• Administrators of the estate of Sir Edward Muteesa II & Others v Kasasa and Another (Civil Appeal No 152 of 2020)

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