Wakilii

Benedict Adam v Makumbi and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 539 of 2014)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 4 · 2022 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and damages for trespass, with a counterclaim by defendants asserting equitable interest and seeking protection as bonafide occupants
Decision
Plaintiff's claim succeeded; defendants declared trespassers; defendants' counterclaim dismissed with costs

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

Held that the defendants' 2003 purchase of the suit land from Zeverio Kasawuli was invalid because it lacked the consent of the registered owner (Buganda Land Board) as required by section 34(9) of the Land Act. Kasawuli's lease had expired in 1997, making him a tenant at sufferance with no interest to transfer. The defendants did not qualify as bonafide occupants under section 29 of the Land Act, as they failed to prove lawful customary occupation and Kasawuli could not legally have acquired customary tenure on the land under the Public Land Act 1969 and Land Reform Decree 1975. The defendants' counterclaim was barred by limitation, having been filed 13 years after the right of action accrued in 2006. Plaintiff declared rightful owner; general damages of UGX 50,000,000 awarded; permanent injunction granted.

Outcome

Plaintiff's claim succeeded; defendants declared trespassers; defendants' counterclaim dismissed with costs

Facts

Plaintiff purchased a 15-year leasehold interest in Block 273 plot 8078, Mutungo Kitiko from Inter Afrique Engineering & General Equipment Ltd for UGX 200,000,000 in March 2014 and was registered as proprietor in July 2014. Defendants claimed they had purchased equitable interest in the same land from Zeverio Kasawuli in February 2003 for UGX 4,500,000. Kasawuli had held a 5-year lease from Buganda Land Board from 1992 to 1997. In August 2014, defendants destroyed plaintiff's building materials brought to the site. Defendants claimed to have used the land since 2003 and to be bonafide occupants, but had never applied for a lease in their own names. The land had been reallocated to Prince Alexander Simbwa in 2006, who subsequently subdivided it and sold a portion to the plaintiff. Defendants discovered the grant to Simbwa in 2006 but did not file suit until the plaintiff sued them for trespass in 2014, and counterclaimed in 2019.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants had an equitable interest in the suit property prior to the acquisition by the plaintiff.
  2. Who was in possession of the suit land prior to acquisition of the same by Inter Afrique Engineering & General Equipment Ltd and later the plaintiff.
  3. Whether the defendants are trespassers on the suit land.
  4. Whether the registration of Inter Afrique Engineering & General Equipment Ltd and the plaintiff titles is fraudulent.
  5. What remedies are parties entitled.

Orders

  • The plaintiff, Adam Harvey, acquired a good title and is the rightful owner of plot 8098, block 273, land at Kitiko Mutungo.
  • A sum of UGX 50,000,000 is awarded as general damages to the plaintiff, with interest at a rate of 10% per annum, payable from the date of delivering this judgment, till payment is made in full.
  • A permanent injunction issues, restraining the defendants and their agents from trespassing on the suit land.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Leasehold Interest — Validity of Transaction Without Lessor's Consent
Where a lessee's lease has expired, any transaction purporting to transfer an interest in the land to a third party without the consent of the registered owner/lessor is void and ineffective by virtue of section 34(9) of the Land Act, and the purchaser acquires no equitable interest.
Leasehold Interest — Status Upon Expiry of Lease
When a lease of a definite term has been terminated by effluxion of time, the lessee has no longer any legal right on the property and becomes a tenant at sufferance. The lessor's right to possession is automatic and the question of notice to such tenant becomes superfluous. The former lessee cannot transfer what has ceased to exist.
Customary Tenure — Burden of Proof and Requirements
A customary tenancy must be specifically proved, with evidence of long occupation, recognition of the owner of the reversion or landlord, payment of busuulu, and in some instances payment of land tax or rent. It may also be established by cultivation of seasonal crops or grazing cattle. Prior to the 1998 Land Act, customary tenure could not be legally acquired on urban public land by virtue of section 24(1)(a) of the Public Land Act 1969 and section 5 of the Land Reform Decree 1975.
Bonafide Occupants — Section 29 of Land Act
To qualify as a bonafide occupant under section 29 of the Land Act, a person must have entered the land with the consent of the registered owner, or occupied and utilized land unchallenged by the registered owner for 12 years or more before the coming into force of the 1995 Constitution. A person who purchases an interest from one who is not a bonafide occupant does not acquire bonafide occupant status under section 29(5).
First Option to Purchase — Registered Owner's Rights
Under section 35(2) of the Land Act, a lessor or owner of land who wishes to sell the reversionary interest in land is required to give the first option of buying that interest to the tenant by occupancy. However, where a transaction between a former lessee and a third party is undertaken without the consent of the registered owner, the lessor has no obligation towards either the former lessee or the purported purchaser.
Limitation — Fraud and Recovery of Land
Under section 25 of the Limitation Act, in actions founded on fraud, the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered, the fraud. Where defendants discover an alleged fraudulent grant of a lease in 2006 but file a counterclaim only in 2019, 13 years after the right of action accrued, the counterclaim is barred by limitation under section 5 of the Limitation Act, which provides a 12-year limitation period for recovery of land.
Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet — Principle Applied
A person cannot pass title that he or she does not have. The right to sell unregistered land is vested only in the person who has valid title to that land. Where a former lessee's lease has expired and reverted to the lessor, the former lessee has no title to pass to a purchaser.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (30)

  • George William Kakoma v Attorney General [2010] HCB 1
  • Sebuliba v Cooperative Bank Ltd [1982] HCB 130
  • Oketha v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 69 of 2004)
  • Justin Lutaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Katende v Vithalidas & Co Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2003)
  • Kampala District Land Board and George Mutale v Venansio Babweyala and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
  • Marko Matovu v Mohammed Sseviri and Another (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1988)
  • Musisi Gabriel v Edeo Limited and George Ragui Kamoi (High Court Land Division Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2010)
  • Bishopgates Motor Finance v Transport Brakes Ltd [1949] 1 KB 332
  • Halling Manzoor v Serwan Singh Baram (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2001)
  • Justine E M Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Kailash Mine Limited v B4S Highstone Ltd (Civil Suit No. 139 of 2012)
  • George Kasedde Mukasa v Emmanuel Wabende and Others (Civil Suit No. 459 of 1998)
  • Kampala District Land Board and Chemical Distributors v National Housing and Construction (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2004)
  • Erina Lam Oto Ongom v Opoka and Another [2020] UGHC 185
  • Dr Adeoderanta Kekitinwa and 3 Others v Edward Maudo Wakida (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1997)
  • Tifu Lukwago v Samwiri Mudde Kizza and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1996)
  • Fam International Ltd and Another v Mohamed Hamird El-Fatih (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1993)
  • Kampala Bottlers v Damanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2012)
  • Polyfibre (U) Ltd v. Matovu Paul & 3 others
  • Madhivani International S.A v. Attorney General
  • Vincent Rule Opio v Attorney General [1990-1992] KALR 68
  • Onesiforo Bamuwayira and 2 Others v Attorney General (1973) HCB 87
  • John Oitamong v Mohammed Olinga [1985] HCB 86
  • Dhanesvar V Mehta v Manilal M Shah [1965] EA 321
  • Rawal v Rawal [1990] KLR 275
  • Iga v Makerere University [1972] EA 65
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Deo Kigozi [2002] EA 293
  • Storms v Hutchison (1905) AC 515
  • Assist (U) Ltd v Italian Asphalt and Haulage and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 1291 of 1999)

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.

Benedict_Adam_v_Makumbi_and_2_Others_(Civil_Suit_No._539_of_2014)_[2022]_UGHCLD_4_(17_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.