Wakilii

Arrow Link (u) Limited v Hon. Ikojo and another (Civil Suit 16 of 2018)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 203 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for trespass, conversion, and unlawful use of quarry site
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff; permanent injunction issued; defendants ordered to return equipment and pay damages

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 plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that it had lawfully acquired quarry sites at Ongeseba and Asinge through agreements with the local community, and that the defendants unlawfully trespassed on these sites, took over operations, used the plaintiff's equipment and raw materials, and sold crushed stones for their own benefit. The court awarded the plaintiff special damages, general damages, and punitive damages, issued a permanent injunction against the defendants, and ordered the return of equipment. The defendants' counterclaim was dismissed for non-prosecution.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff; permanent injunction issued; defendants ordered to return equipment and pay damages

Facts

The plaintiff, Arrow Link (U) Ltd, acquired quarry sites at Ongeseba and Asinge villages through agreements with the local community in January 2018 and commenced stone blasting and crushing operations. In May 2018, the 1st defendant, Hon. Ikojo John Bosco, forcefully entered the plaintiff's quarry sites with the assistance of police officers, drove away the plaintiff's supervisor and workers, and claimed ownership of the business. The 1st defendant brought in the 2nd defendant, Rosco (U) Ltd, to operate on the sites. The defendants used the plaintiff's equipment and raw materials to crush and sell stones, earning approximately UGX 56,000,000. Subsequently, the defendants dismantled the plaintiff's machinery and transferred all equipment to a new site. The plaintiff filed suit claiming trespass, conversion, and loss. The defendants filed a counterclaim alleging breach of a partnership agreement but failed to appear to prosecute their case, leading to dismissal of the counterclaim and the plaintiff's case proceeding ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendants?
  2. Whether the counterclaim discloses a cause of action against the plaintiff?
  3. Whether the defendants trespassed on the plaintiff's quarry?
  4. What are the remedies available, if any?

Orders

  • The plaintiff's suit succeeds.
  • The defendants' counterclaim is dismissed for non-prosecution with costs to the plaintiff.
  • The plaintiff is found to be the rightful owner of the quarrying business at its sites at Ongeseba and Asinge.
  • A permanent injunction is issued against the defendants and their agents restraining them from entering onto the quarry and carrying out any activities at Ongeseba and Asinge.
  • An order is issued directing the defendants to return the equipment they had taken from the plaintiff's quarry to the plaintiff in good working condition, reiterating a similar order issued on 30 April 2019.
  • The defendants are jointly condemned to pay the plaintiff UGX 50,000,000 as punitive damages in equal amounts.
  • The defendants are jointly condemned to pay the plaintiff UGX 100,000,000 as general damages in equal amounts.
  • The award of general and special damages shall carry interest at 18% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The plaintiff is awarded the costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — Trespass to Land — Elements of Proof
To prove trespass to land, a plaintiff must establish that it was in possession of the property at the time of the defendant's entry, that the entry was unlawful or unauthorised, and that the entry occasioned damage.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Elements
A cause of action is established when a plaintiff proves that it enjoyed a right, that the right was violated by the defendant, and that the defendant is liable for the violation of that right.
Civil Procedure — Counterclaim — Dismissal for Non-Prosecution
A counterclaim that is not prosecuted because the counterclaimant and counsel fail to appear at hearings without valid reason is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution with costs to the plaintiff.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Order 9 Rule 20(1)(a) CPR
Where a defendant and counsel are properly served with hearing notices but repeatedly fail to appear without valid reason, the court may allow the plaintiff's case to proceed ex parte under Order 9 rule 20(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Tort Law — Damages — Special Damages — Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, but strict proof does not always require documentary evidence; special damages may be proved by direct oral evidence from persons who received or paid the amounts, or by expert testimony.
Tort Law — Damages — Punitive Damages — High-Handed Conduct
Where a defendant acts with impunity by unlawfully taking the law into their own hands, forcefully seizing a plaintiff's property, and conducting operations for their own benefit, the court may award punitive damages to condemn such high-handed and unlawful conduct.
Civil Procedure — Interest on Damages — Discretion of Court
Where no interest rate is agreed by the parties, the court has discretion under section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act to award interest that is just and reasonable, taking into account prevailing economic conditions including inflation and currency depreciation.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (13)

  • Tororo Cement Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2001)
  • Kebirungi vs Road Trainers Ltd and 2 Others [2008] HCB 72
  • Nsubuga vs. Kavuma [1978] HCB 30
  • Cooke vs Gull LR 8 E.P. 116
  • Read vs Brown 22 QBD P.31
  • Elly B Mugabi vs Nyanza Textile Industries Ltd [1992-93] HCB 227
  • Adrabo vs Madira [2017] UGHCLD 102
  • Kyambadde vs Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v A.S. Transporters (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Charles Acire v Myaana Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Waiglobe (U) Ltd v Sai Beverages Ltd [2017] UGHCCD 172

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.

Arrow Link (u) Limited v Hon. Ikojo and another (Civil Suit 16 of 2018) [2023] UGHCCD 203 (29 June 2023)
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.