Wakilii

Akureje Nathan Omadi and Another v Bukenya Kenneth and Others (Civil Suit No.64 of 2023)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 360 · 2026 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of land sale agreement, refund of purchase price, and damages; with counterclaim by National Forestry Authority for cancellation of title and eviction
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiffs against the 1st and 2nd defendants with refund of purchase price, general damages, punitive damages, interest and costs. Certificate of title declared null and void and ordered cancelled. National Forestry Authority's counterclaim allowed; permanent injunction and eviction orders granted in favour of NFA.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time 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 1st and 2nd defendants breached the land sale agreement by failing to pass good title to land that formed part of the gazetted Kifu Central Forest Reserve. The court found that the Commissioner Land Registration acted negligently in issuing a certificate of title over protected forest reserve land. The plaintiffs were entitled to a refund of UGX 65,000,000 plus general and punitive damages. The certificate of title was declared null and void and ordered cancelled. The National Forestry Authority's counterclaim succeeded; the court found the plaintiffs had no cause of action against NFA, which acted lawfully within its statutory mandate in evicting them from the forest reserve.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiffs against the 1st and 2nd defendants with refund of purchase price, general damages, punitive damages, interest and costs. Certificate of title declared null and void and ordered cancelled. National Forestry Authority's counterclaim allowed; permanent injunction and eviction orders granted in favour of NFA.

Facts

On 30 July 2020, the plaintiffs entered into a land sale agreement with the 1st and 2nd defendants to purchase 3.15 acres out of land comprised in Freehold Register Volume MKO 824 Folio 11 Block 535 Plot 94 at Budugala for UGX 120,000,000. The plaintiffs paid UGX 65,000,000 as first instalment and took possession. Before purchase, they conducted searches at the land registry which showed the 1st and 2nd defendants as registered proprietors. Before the transaction could be completed, the National Forestry Authority (3rd defendant) stopped the plaintiffs from using the land, alleging it formed part of the gazetted Kifu Central Forest Reserve. NFA forcefully evicted the plaintiffs and began planting trees. The plaintiffs sought a refund and damages. Evidence established that Kifu Central Forest Reserve was gazetted in 1932 under Legal Notice No. 87 of 1932 and regazetted in 1998 under Statutory Instrument No. 63 of 1998, and had never been degazetted. A survey report confirmed that the suit land fell squarely inside the forest reserve. The 1st and 2nd defendants had been issued a certificate of title by the Commissioner Land Registration over land that was legally incapable of private ownership.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants are in breach of the land sale agreement that was executed between them and the plaintiffs on the 30th day of July 2020?
  2. Whether there was negligence on the part of the 4th defendant?
  3. Whether the land that was the subject of the sale agreement forms part of Kifu Central Forest Reserve?
  4. Whether the plaintiffs have a cause of action against the 3rd defendant?
  5. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The 1st and 2nd defendants to refund the plaintiffs UGX 65,000,000 (Sixty-Five million shillings only) as a refund of the amount paid as part of the purchase price.
  • The 1st and 2nd defendants to pay interest on the refund at the rate of 8% from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • The plaintiffs are awarded UGX 15,000,000 as general damages and UGX 10,000,000 as punitive damages.
  • Interest shall be payable on general and punitive damages at the rate of 8% from the date of judgement till payment in full.
  • The plaintiffs are awarded costs of the suit against the 1st and 2nd defendants.
  • The certificate of title issued to the 1st and 2nd defendants over the land located within Kifu Central Forest Reserve is declared illegal, null and void.
  • The said certificate of title is to be cancelled from the Register by the Commissioner Land Registration.
  • The 3rd defendant (National Forestry Authority) is directed to take possession of the suit land.
  • The suit against the 3rd defendant (National Forestry Authority) is dismissed.
  • The certificate of title for the land comprised in Freehold Register Volume MKO 824 Folio 11 Block 535 Plot 94 at Budugala held by the 3rd and 4th counter defendants is declared illegal and issued in error.
  • The 5th counter defendant's (Mukono District Land Board) conversion and/or grant of freehold of the suit land to the 3rd and 4th counter defendants was in error and/or illegal.
  • The 6th counter defendant's (Commissioner Land Registration) issuance of the certificate of title to the suit land was in error and illegal.
  • The issuance of a freehold title in respect of the suit land to the 3rd and 4th counter defendants by the 5th counter defendant is null and void and is cancelled.
  • The 3rd and 4th counter defendants to deliver the said certificate of title to the 6th counter defendant for cancellation.
  • An order of eviction against the 1st to 4th counter defendants, their agents, servants, employees, assignees, successors in title or any person acting on their behalf from entering, remaining, utilizing, settling, alienating, dealing in or in any way interfering with the suit land.
  • A permanent injunction restraining the 1st to 5th counter defendants, their agents, servants, employees, assignees, successors in title or any person acting on their behalf from entering, remaining, utilizing, settling, alienating, dealing in or in any way interfering with the suit land.
  • Each party to bear its own costs in respect of the counterclaim.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Vendor's Obligation to Pass Good Title
The fundamental obligation of a vendor under a land sale agreement is to pass a good and marketable title to the purchaser. A vendor who has no title cannot pass a valid title to a purchaser. Where a vendor purports to sell land over which they have no lawful proprietary interest capable of being transferred, the contract becomes incapable of lawful performance and the vendor is in breach.
Land & Property — Forest Reserves — Alienation of Gazetted Land
Land reserved for a public purpose, including gazetted Central Forest Reserves, cannot lawfully be alienated or transferred unless the law governing such land has been complied with. Any purported transfer of land belonging to a public body without lawful authority is invalid. A Central Forest Reserve that has been gazetted and not degazetted remains vested in the Government and cannot be privately owned.
Administrative Law — Commissioner Land Registration — Duty of Care and Negligence
The duty of the Commissioner Land Registration is not merely mechanical. The office is required to ensure that the register does not confer titles over land that is legally incapable of private ownership. By issuing a certificate of title over land forming part of a central forest reserve, the Commissioner fails to exercise the due diligence expected of that office. The issuance of a certificate of title over protected forest reserve land amounts to administrative negligence because it creates a false impression that the land is available for private ownership when in fact it is not.
Land & Property — Registration of Titles — Cancellation of Fraudulent or Illegal Titles
Where a title is obtained fraudulently or illegally, it can be cancelled. A certificate of title issued over land forming part of a gazetted forest reserve is void ab initio due to illegality. Registration does not cure illegality. Such titles must be cancelled by the Commissioner Land Registration.
Environmental Law — National Forestry Authority — Statutory Mandate and Lawful Eviction
The National Forestry Authority is mandated by law to protect, manage and regulate central forest reserves. This includes the duty to prevent encroachment and to remove unlawful occupants. Where persons occupy land within a forest reserve without lawful authority, they are in illegal occupation. Eviction carried out by the National Forestry Authority in furtherance of its statutory duty is lawful. For a plaintiff to sustain a cause of action against the National Forestry Authority, they must demonstrate a legal right vested in them and a violation of that right. Without a legally protected right, there can be no actionable wrong.
Contract Law — Remedies for Breach — Refund of Purchase Price and Damages
Where a seller had no title to pass, the buyer is entitled to a full refund of the purchase price. Where there is a breach of contract, the party who suffers that breach is entitled to receive compensation for the loss or damage caused. General damages are compensatory for the wrongs done and are intended to restore the wronged party to the position they would have been in if there had been no breach. Punitive damages may be awarded where the defendant deliberately engages in unlawful conduct for gain, to punish egregious conduct and deter similar conduct in the future.
Land & Property — Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet — Transfer of Title
The principle of nemo dat quod non habet applies: one cannot give what one does not have. Where a vendor has no legal interest capable of being transferred in respect of land forming part of a forest reserve, a purchaser does not acquire any legally recognizable interest in the land. A purchaser's grievance lies against the vendor who purported to sell land they had no authority to sell, not against the statutory body lawfully managing the reserve.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (18)

  • United Building Services Ltd v Yates Muskrat t/a Quickest Builders & Co (HCCS No. 154 of 2005)
  • H. Kateralwire v Paul Lwanga (1989) HCB 56
  • Adrabo Stanley v Madra Jimmy (HCCS No. 24 of 2013)
  • Gulaballi Ushillani v Kampala Pharmaceuticals Ltd (SCCA No. 6 of 1999)
  • David Etuket and Another v The New Vision Printing & Publication Corp (HCCS No. 86 of 1996)
  • Owere v National Organisation of Trade Union and Others (Misc. Cause No. 6 of 2013)
  • Printing and Numerical Registering Co v Sampson (1875) LR 19 EQ 462
  • Dr. Joseph Byabazaire v Mukwano Industries Ltd (SCCA No. 10 of 2001)
  • Makerere University v Ndamulira (SCCA No. 15 of 1992)
  • Uganda National Roads Authority v Irumba Asumani and Another (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2014) [2015] UGSC 22
  • Micheal Katungye v Fred Byamukama and Another (HCCS No. 706 of 2020)
  • Rowland v Divall [1923] 2 KB 500
  • Obongo and Another v Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] 1 EACA 91
  • National Forestry Authority v Mukisa and Others (HCCS No. 140 of 2009)
  • Katarikawe v Katwiremu and Another [1977] HCB 187
  • Auto Garage and Another v Motokov (1971) EA 514
  • Attorney General v Oluoch (1972) EA 392
  • National Forestry Authority v Evaristo Kafeero (SCCA No. 4 of 2019)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Akureje Nathan Omadi and Another v Bukenya Kenneth and Others (Civil Suit No.64 of 2023) [2026] UGHC 360 (30 March 2026)
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.