Wakilii

Anil Damani v Edward Senteza [2026] UGHCLD 222

High Court · 2026 Counterclaim Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex parte hearing of a counterclaim in trespass filed in a civil suit, the main suit having been dismissed for failure to disclose a cause of action
Decision
Counterclaim dismissed for lack of locus standi with no order as to costs

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

The court dismissed a counterclaim in trespass for want of locus standi. Trespass to land is a wrong against the person in actual or constructive possession at the time of the unauthorised entry, not against the land itself. At the material time the registered lessee, M/S Tsons Trading Co. (U) Ltd, was in physical possession under a registered 30-year lease and alone held the right to sue for interference with its quiet possession. The counter-claimant acquired the land by gift and was registered only after the trespass and its effect on the lease had occurred, so he could not maintain the action. The counterclaim was dismissed under Order 7 rule 11 with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Counterclaim dismissed for lack of locus standi with no order as to costs

Facts

Karim Hirji purchased the suit land at Kyadondo Block 213 Plot 1150, Kira Road, Bukoto, Nakawa Division, Kampala. Acting under powers of attorney from Mr. Hirji, the counter-claimant Mr. Anil Damani executed a thirty-year lease of the property with M/S Tsons Trading Co. (U) Ltd. The lease was registered as an encumbrance on the title and a leasehold title (Leasehold Register Volume KCCA 533 Folio 23) was issued to the lessee. Mr. Damani vacated and handed possession to the lessee, which engaged architects for an intended development. Mr. Edward Senteza thereafter allegedly took forceful and unlawful possession, inscribing notices on the perimeter wall that the premises were to let and that the property was family property not for sale. In November 2019 Mr. Damani acquired the land by gift from his brother Mr. Hirji and was registered as proprietor on 7 November 2019 under Instrument Number KCCA-00067128. On 6 February 2020 the lessee terminated the lease and demanded a refund of the consideration. Mr. Damani counterclaimed for declarations of trespass and special damages of USD 109,620 plus USD 1,295,016 for loss of rental business. The counterclaim proceeded ex parte, no defence having been filed.

Issues

  1. Whether the counterclaim founded on trespass to land had merit.
  2. Whether the counter-claimant, who obtained registered title after the alleged trespass, had locus standi to sue in trespass.

Orders

  • The counter-claimant's complaint is untenable for want of locus standi and is dismissed under Order 7 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — Trespass to Land — Nature of the Wrong — Interference with Possession
Trespass to land is committed by an unauthorised entry that interferes, or purports to interfere, with another's lawful possession; the wrong is committed not against the land but against the person in actual or constructive possession of it.
Land & Property — Registered Lease — Right of Lessee in Possession to Sue for Trespass
Where a registered lessee is in physical possession of the land at the time of the unauthorised entry, the right to sue for trespass vests exclusively in that lessee and not in the lessor or a subsequent transferee of the reversion.
Civil Procedure — Locus Standi — Acquisition of Title After Accrual of Cause of Action — Dismissal under Order 7 rule 11
A claimant who acquires an interest in land after the alleged trespass has occurred lacks locus standi to sue on that cause of action, and the pleading is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.11

Cases cited (1)

  • Justine E.M.N. Lutaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Anil Damani v Edward Senteza [2026] UGHCLD 222 (20 July 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.