Wakilii

Attorney General v Etot and 8 Others (Civil Appeal No. 144 of 2018)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 1 · 2022 Appeal Substantially Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal by the Attorney General from a High Court judgment awarding compensation and general damages for compulsorily acquired land
Decision
Appeal substantially allowed; separate rock compensation set aside and general damages reduced to UGX 203,269,535

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 of Appeal held that rocks and stones are part of the land, not minerals under Article 244, and cannot be valued or compensated separately from the land; the separate award of UGX 8,327,919,600 for rock deposits was set aside. The trial court's UGX 1,000,000,000 general damages award was set aside as exorbitant and greater than the land's market value. The lead judgment awarded UGX 203,269,535 (25% of compensation) as general damages for breach of the constitutional right to prompt and adequate compensation under Article 26. Justice Mugenyi, differing, awarded UGX 110,395,737 on a pro rata basis for unlawful occupation of the unacquired residual land. The appeal substantially succeeded with each party bearing its own costs.

Outcome

Appeal substantially allowed; separate rock compensation set aside and general damages reduced to UGX 203,269,535

Facts

The respondents were joint registered proprietors of two plots (FRV 1169 Folios 22 and 23, Plots 76 and 77) at Nora, Kamdini in Oyam district. Around 2011-2012 the Government of Uganda compulsorily acquired portions of the land for construction of the Karuma hydroelectric power dam, and handed the land to contractor Sino Hydro Corporation Limited. Part of the land was used as a dumping site and access route. The plots contained substantial rock deposits which the contractor quarried and crushed into aggregate for dam construction. The respondents sued for compensation, alleging the Government took possession without prompt and adequate compensation contrary to Article 26 of the Constitution. The High Court awarded UGX 1,204,063,640 for the land, UGX 8,327,919,600 for rock deposits, and UGX 1,000,000,000 general damages. The Attorney General conceded the land compensation should be UGX 813,078,140 (which was paid following mandamus proceedings) but appealed the separate rock award and general damages.

Issues

  1. Whether compensation is payable for rock deposits on compulsorily acquired land separately from and in addition to the value of the land itself.
  2. Whether rocks form part of the land or constitute minerals vested in the Government under Article 244 of the Constitution.
  3. Whether the award of general damages of UGX 1,000,000,000 was justified and appropriate in quantum.
  4. Whether the compulsory acquisition without prior compensation constituted a breach of Article 26 of the Constitution entitling the respondents to general damages.

Orders

  • The sum of Uganda shillings 8,327,919,600/= awarded as the value of rock by the High Court is set aside.
  • The award of general damages of Uganda shillings 1,000,000,000/= is set aside and substituted with Uganda shillings 203,269,535/= as general damages payable to the respondents.
  • General damages carry interest at 8% per annum from the date of the High Court judgment till payment in full.
  • The appeal substantially succeeds with each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Compulsory Acquisition — Valuation — Rock Deposits as Part of Land
Rocks and stones commonly used for building are part of the land and are not minerals within the meaning of Article 244 of the Constitution; they cannot be valued or compensated separately from and in addition to the market value of the land on which they are found.
Constitution — Definition of 'Mineral' — Article 244(5) — Exclusion of Stone
Article 244(5) of the Constitution excludes clay, murram, sand and any stone commonly used for building or similar purposes from the definition of 'mineral'; such substances therefore remain part of the land vested in the landowner under the applicable land tenure system rather than in the Government.
Compulsory Acquisition — Market Value — 'Unit Times Price' Method Rejected
Compensation for compulsorily acquired land must be assessed on the market value (willing seller, willing buyer) basis; determining the value of rock or mineral deposits by estimating tonnage and multiplying by a unit price is speculative and impermissible, though the presence of such deposits may be considered to the extent it influences the overall market value of the land.
Property Rights — Article 26 — Prompt Payment Prior to Acquisition
Failure by the Government to pay prompt and adequate compensation prior to compulsory acquisition of property violates Article 26 of the Constitution and constitutes an actionable breach of statutory duty for which general damages may be awarded, unless the limitation on the right is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.
General Damages — Restitutio in Integrum — Proportionality to Value of Land
An award of general damages for delayed compensation must apply the principle of restitutio in integrum and cannot exceed the market value of the compulsorily acquired land; where a plaintiff proves breach but not the quantum, the court may assess a proportionate figure.
Land Acquisition Act — Section 7 — Possession Prior to Payment
Section 7(1) of the Land Acquisition Act permits an assessment officer to take possession of land upon making an award, and in exceptional cases certified as being in the public interest before the compensation process is completed, so that immediate possession for a bona fide public infrastructure project does not necessarily constitute a breach of statute.

Legislation cited (22)

Cases cited (30)

  • Pyrali Abdul Rasaul Esmail v Adrian Sibo (Constitutional Petition No. 9 of 1997)
  • Sheema Cooperative Ranching Society & 31 Others v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 103 of 2010)
  • Buran Chandmary vs the Collector under the Indian Land Acquisition Act (1894) 1957 EACA 125
  • Musisi Godfrey v Uganda National Roads Authority (Civil Suit No. 217 of 2017)
  • Abdallah v The Collector for City Council of Kampala (1958) EA 779
  • Glasgow Corporation v Farie (1888) 13 App Cas 657
  • United States v Miller, 317 U.S. 369 (1943)
  • United States v Land in Dry Bed of Rosamond Lake, 143 F. Supp. 314 (S.D. Cal. 1956)
  • United States v 179.26 Acres of Land in Douglas County, 644 F.2d 367 (10th Cir. 1981)
  • Iske v Omaha Public Power District, 178 N.W.2d 633 (1970)
  • United States v 13.40 Acres of Land in City of Richmond, 56 F. Supp. 535 (N.D. Cal. 1944)
  • Annet Zimbiha v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 109 of 2011)
  • Prince J.D.C Mpuga Rukidi v Prince Solomon Iguru (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1994)
  • Alister Fraser v Her Majesty the Queen [1963] SCR 455
  • Sengendo v Attorney General [1972] 1 EA 140
  • Ddegeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority [1997] KALR 388
  • Etot Peter Paul & Others v Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (Miscellaneous Application No. 257 of 2018)
  • Peters v Sunday Post Ltd [1958] 1 EA 424
  • Narsensio Begumisa & 3 Others v Eric Tibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Banco Arab Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Dawson v Bingley Urban District Council [1911] 2 KB 149
  • Dharamshi v Karsan [1974] 1 EA 41
  • Johnson v Agnew [1979] 1 All ER 883
  • Toronto Sub Urban Railway Company versus Thomas H Everson Volume LIV 1917 Supreme Court of Canada page 395
  • Re Lucas and Chesterfield Gas and Water Board [1909] 1 KB 16
  • Patrick Musimba v National Land Commission & 4 Others (2016) eKLR
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v EADB (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1992)
  • Traill v Booker (1947) 20 EACA 20
  • Uganda Breweries Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Attorney General v Etot and 8 Others (Civil Appeal No. 144 of 2018) [2022] UGCA 1 (11 January 2022)
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.