Wakilii

Batte & 5 Others v Buganda Land Board & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 2 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 25 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for consequential orders arising from High Court Civil Suit No. 993 of 2018 following a consent judgment between applicants and the 1st respondent
Decision
Application dismissed; main suit to proceed to trial

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

Court held that consequential eviction orders cannot issue against the 2nd to 4th respondents who were not party to the consent judgment between the applicants and the 1st respondent. Although a consent judgment and survey established that the disputed kibanja lies on Kyadondo Block 272, not Block 273, the 2nd to 4th respondents retain a right to be heard at trial concerning their alleged proprietary interests. No judgment after full trial has been made that would support consequential eviction orders.

Outcome

Application dismissed; main suit to proceed to trial

Facts

The applicants, who are fishermen occupying a kibanja at Mutungo, filed Civil Suit No. 993 of 2018 claiming trespass by the respondents. The 1st respondent (Buganda Land Board) and the 2nd to 4th respondents asserted that the kibanja formed part of Kyadondo Block 273, official mailo land returned to the Kabaka of Buganda, with the 2nd to 4th respondents occupying as caretakers. The applicants applied for a locational boundary survey, which was ordered by court. A government surveyor conducted the survey on 14th and 20th May 2023 and found that the disputed kibanja lies entirely on Kyadondo Block 272, not Block 273. On 17th August 2023, the applicants entered a consent judgment with the 1st respondent confirming this finding and settling the claim against the 1st respondent. The consent judgment did not include an eviction order. The applicants then filed this application seeking consequential orders to evict the 2nd to 4th respondents, who were not party to the consent judgment.

Issues

  1. In light of the consent judgment entered between the plaintiffs and the 1st respondent on 17th August 2023, whether the 2nd to 4th respondents as caretakers/licensees have any proprietary interest in the subject land comprised on Kyadondo Block 272 meriting trial.
  2. Whether a consequential order to vacate or evict should issue against respondents, their agents, servants, workers, assignees, successors in title or any person claiming an interest through them on the usufruct/kibanja comprised on Kyadondo Block 272 land at Mutungo.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each side to bear its own costs.
  • Main suit CS 993 of 2018 fixed for hearing on 17th March at 12.30pm.
  • Hearing to proceed with marking of documents.

Rules and key headnotes

Consequential Orders — Conditions for Granting
A consequential order is an order giving effect to a judgment or decision and is normally directly traceable to or flowing from a judgment or decision duly prayed for or granted by court. For an application for consequential orders to succeed, there must be an existing judgment or ruling of court that requires further orders to make it effective.
Consequential Orders — Eviction — Consent Judgment — Effect on Non-Parties
Where a consent judgment is entered between some but not all defendants, consequential eviction orders cannot be issued against defendants who were not party to that consent judgment in the absence of a judgment after full trial involving those defendants. A consent judgment between certain parties does not amount to a trial that determines the rights of other parties.
Natural Justice — Right to Be Heard — Audi Alteram Partem
The right to a fair hearing, embedded in Article 28 of the Constitution, includes the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem — that no person should be condemned unheard. Procedural justice requires that decision-making be based on fair processes and procedures, and parties must be given an opportunity to be heard before decisions affecting their rights are made.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (10)

  • Ababii Muhamood & Others v Mukomba Ananstansia & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 22 of 2015)
  • Dina Okidi & Another v George William Oduong (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 233 of 2015)
  • Inwards & others vs. Baker [1965] 2 WLR 212: [1965] 2 QB 29: [1965] 1 ALL ER 446: [1965] EWCA Civ 4
  • Ssimbwa and Afidra Milton v Trustees of Rubaga Miracle Centre & Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 576 of 2006)
  • Makula International Ltd versus His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11 at 16
  • Uganda Railways Corporation v Ekwaru & Others (Civil Application No. 185 of 2007)
  • Kelner versus Baxter (1986) LR CP 174
  • 44123 Ontario Ltd v Crispus Kiyonga & Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 1038 of 1990)
  • Kalibbala & Another v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 70 of 2015)
  • Registered Trustees of Apostolic Church v Okorolemi (1990) 6 NWLR pt 158 at 15

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.

Batte_&_5_Others_v_Buganda_Land_Board_&_3_Others_(Miscellaneous_Cause_2_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_25_(31_January_2025)
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.