Alokit v Turinomujuni and Others (Civil Suit 150 of 2019)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
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.
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
Held that land jointly purchased by spouses during marriage constitutes family land under section 38A of the Land Act. The husband's sale of part of the family land to the second defendant without spousal consent was unlawful under section 39 of the Land Act. The subsequent mortgage by the purchaser to the third defendant was likewise unlawful. The plaintiff entitled to declarations of joint ownership, eviction of the trespasser, permanent injunction, general damages of UGX 30,000,000, and costs.
Outcome
Judgment entered for Plaintiff against 1st and 2nd Defendants; sale and mortgage declared unlawful; 2nd Defendant to be evicted; damages, injunction, and costs awarded
Facts
The Plaintiff and 1st Defendant married on 19 July 2008 and jointly purchased 15 acres of land in Hoima District on 4 October 2011. They took possession, cultivated the land, and built a house. In 2013, the Plaintiff discovered a school operated by the 2nd Defendant on approximately 5 acres forming part of the family land. In 2017, the Plaintiff learned that the 1st Defendant had sold this portion to the 2nd Defendant without her consent as spouse. Subsequently, the 1st and 2nd Defendants mortgaged the land to the 3rd Defendant. Default judgment was entered against the 1st and 2nd Defendants after they failed to file defences. A consent judgment was entered between the Plaintiff and the 3rd Defendant.
Issues
- Whether the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant jointly acquired the suit property.
- Whether the suit property constitutes family land.
- Whether the mortgage of the suit property to the 3rd Defendant by the 1st and 2nd Defendants was unlawful.
- What remedies are available to the parties.
Orders
- Declaration of joint ownership of land by the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant, and that the suit property constitutes part of the family land.
- Declaration that the 1st Defendant's sale of the suit property to the 2nd Defendant was unlawful.
- Declaration that the mortgage of the suit property to the 3rd Defendant by the 1st and 2nd Defendants was unlawful.
- Declaration that the 2nd Defendant is a trespasser.
- Order for vacant possession and eviction.
- Order for a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants and their agents from further trespassing on the suit property.
- Order for delivery of the original sale agreement in possession of the 3rd Defendant, in accordance with the consent judgment.
- General damages of UGX 30,000,000 (Uganda Shillings Thirty Million only).
- Interest on general damages at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full.
- Costs of the suit.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
Cases cited (6)
- Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (SC Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
- Yoswa Kityo v Eriya Kaddu [1982] HCB 58
- Crown Beverages v Sendi (SC Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
- Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
- Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (No. 2) [1970] EA 469
- Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co. Ltd (1981) HCB 35
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.