Wakilii

Bashaija K. Andrew v Green Lounge Investments Limited and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 0026 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 428 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaration of nuisance, permanent injunction, and damages
Decision
Permanent injunction granted restraining defendants from operating bar and restaurant at the location; general damages of UGX 5,000,000 awarded to plaintiff

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 High Court held that the 3rd Defendant did not authorize the 1st and 2nd Defendants to operate a bar and restaurant at Block 244 Plot 950, as the trade licence specified a different location. The court found that the 1st and 2nd Defendants' operation of a bar and restaurant in an exclusively gazetted residential area constituted a private nuisance to the plaintiff and his tenants through excessive noise from music and revelers. The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from continuing the business at that location and awarded general damages of UGX 5,000,000 for inconvenience caused.

Outcome

Permanent injunction granted restraining defendants from operating bar and restaurant at the location; general damages of UGX 5,000,000 awarded to plaintiff

Facts

The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of land at Kyadondo Block 244 Plots 1652 and 1653 at Ministers Village Kisugu-Muyenga, a gazetted residential area, where he has resided for over 22 years and owns rental premises. The 1st Defendant is the registered owner of adjacent Plot 950, separated by a wall. In 2019, the 1st and 2nd Defendants established a bar and restaurant on Plot 950. The 3rd Defendant issued a trade licence, though the Director of Physical Planning subsequently issued an enforcement notice stating that Muyenga is an exclusively gazetted residential area and that the bar and restaurant activities are incompatible with the existing land use, generating excessive and disruptive noise. The plaintiff alleged that noise from music and revelers, intrusions by drunk patrons, and general disturbance constituted a nuisance affecting his family and tenants. During the locus visit, the court observed tents, a swimming pool, outdoor drinking facilities, and the proximity of the bar to the plaintiff's residential premises.

Issues

  1. Whether it was lawful for the 3rd Defendant to issue a licence to the 1st Defendant to operate the business of a bar and restaurant on Kyadondo Block 244 Plot 950.
  2. Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendants committed any nuisance from Kyadondo Block 244, Plot 950 against the residents and occupiers of Kyadondo Block 244, Plot 1652 and Plot 1653.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • It is declared that the acts of the 1st and 2nd Defendants and their agents on Kyadondo Block 244, Plot 950, Ministers Village Kisugu - Muyenga along Zzimwe road constitute a private nuisance to the Plaintiff, his family and tenants.
  • The 1st and 2nd Defendants are restrained from carrying on the business of a bar and restaurant on the land comprised in Kyadondo Block 244 Plot 950 at Ministers Village Kisugu - Muyenga.
  • A Permanent Injunction is issued restraining the 3rd Defendant from renewing and/or issuing a trade license to the 1st and 2nd Defendants to operate the business of a bar and restaurant on the land comprised in Kyadondo Block 244 Plot 950 at Minister's Village - Kisugu - Muyenga.
  • The 1st and 2nd Defendants to pay UGX 5,000,000 as general damages to the Plaintiff for inconveniences caused by their nuisance.
  • The 1st and 2nd Defendants to pay costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Trade Licensing — Authority to Issue Licences — Licensing of Trade versus Licensing of Premises
A licensing authority licenses trade activities, not premises, and a trade licence does not constitute authorization to conduct the licensed trade at a specific location unless that location is expressly stated and lawful under applicable land use regulations.
Tort Law — Nuisance — Private Nuisance — Noise Pollution from Commercial Activities in Residential Area
The operation of a bar and restaurant in an exclusively gazetted residential area, generating excessive and disruptive noise from music and revelers, constitutes a private nuisance to neighboring residential occupants where the commercial activity is incompatible with the existing land use.
Land & Property — Land Use Planning — Gazetted Residential Areas — Incompatible Commercial Use
Where an area is gazetted as an exclusive residential zone, the establishment of leisure facilities such as bars and restaurants is incompatible with the existing land use and may be restrained as a nuisance regardless of the existence of a trade licence.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Preliminary Objections — Submission to Jurisdiction by Filing Defence
A defendant who files a defence without first applying under Order 9 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dispute the court's jurisdiction is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and is estopped from raising a jurisdictional objection at a later stage.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — High Court Original Jurisdiction — Pecuniary Limits
Where the value of the subject matter in dispute and the claims exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Courts, the High Court has proper original jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Article 139(1) of the Constitution and Section 14(1) of the Judicature Act.
Tort Law — Remedies — Permanent Injunction — Restraining Ongoing Nuisance
A permanent injunction is an appropriate remedy to prevent ongoing or future infringement where a defendant's activities constitute a continuing nuisance, for the purpose of dispensing complete justice between the parties.
Tort Law — Damages — General Damages for Nuisance — Inconvenience and Discomfort
General damages may be awarded for inconvenience, discomfort, and disturbance to peaceful enjoyment of property caused by a defendant's nuisance, even where special damages for financial loss are not proven.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (19)

  • Akol Ellen Odeke v Okodel Umar (Election Petition Appeal No. 6 of 2020)
  • Mansur Sharif and Others v Casablanca Pub, Night Club and Restaurant Limited (Civil Suit No. 153 of 2018)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Rabbo Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2004)
  • Uwonda Saverio and Another v Total Energies (Civil Suit No. 013 of 2016)
  • Kayondo v The Co-operative Bank (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 109 of 1992)
  • Ozuu Brothers Enterprises v Ayikoru Milka (High Court Revision Application No. 002 of 2016)
  • Former Employees of G4S Security Services Limited v G4S Security Services Limited (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2020)
  • Mahara Ahmed v Emin Pasha (Civil Suit No. 78 of 2011)
  • Sedleigh Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940] ALL ER 349
  • Akena Christopher and Others v Opwonya Noah [2018] UGHCLD
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell (UG) Ltd (2008) HCB 163
  • Grace v Kisambara Sentamu Ismail (Civil Suit No. 0112 of 2019)
  • Dr. Denis Lwamafa v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 79 of 1983) [1992] 1KALR
  • Asiimwe Alex v Maracha Sama and Another [2017] UGHCCD 204
  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 13 of 1993)
  • Eden International School Limited v East African Development Bank Ltd (2017) HCB 130
  • Security Ltd v Camber Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 0916 of 2014)
  • Haji Abdu Nasser Katende v Deborah Mukisa (Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2013)
  • Kwitera Eddie v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bashaija K. Andrew v Green Lounge Investments Limited and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 0026 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 428 (22 February 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.