Wakilii

Busiro Coffee Farmers and Dealers Limited v Kayongo and Others (Civil Suit 532 of 1992)

High Court · [1996] UGHCLD 2 · 1996 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, eviction, and mesne profits
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally with eviction order and award of mesne profits

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 held that the plaintiff, as registered proprietor of a 49-year lease, acquired good title as a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration under section 189 of the Registration of Titles Act, even if the lessor's re-entry was improper. The defendants, whose prior lease had been determined by re-entry, became trespassers upon the plaintiff's registration and were liable for mesne profits. Allegations of fraud in the re-entry process were rejected as insufficiently pleaded and not attributable to the plaintiff.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally with eviction order and award of mesne profits

Facts

The plaintiff company was the registered lessee of land in Mukono District under a 49-year lease registered in November 1990. The property had previously been subject to a 99-year lease to Farms and Plantations Ltd, whose owners were expelled in 1972 and whose property was expropriated. The lessor, George William Muwonge, successfully applied for determination of the lease for non-payment of ground rent, with re-entry noted in August 1990. The Departed Asians Property Custodian Board had allocated the property to the defendants in 1989. When the plaintiff demanded vacant possession, the defendants resisted, claiming to be tenants of the Custodian Board. The plaintiff filed suit seeking a declaration of ownership, eviction, and mesne profits.

Issues

  1. Whether the re-entry by George William Muwonge was fraudulent or not
  2. Whether the plaintiff acquired the lease as a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration
  3. Whether the defendants are occupying the land legally
  4. Whether the defendants are entitled to the reliefs in the counter-claim

Orders

  • Declaration that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the suit premises.
  • Eviction order against the defendants.
  • Mesne profits of UGX 25,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Interest at the rate of 50% per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Fraud — Particulars of Fraud Required
Where a party alleges fraud in pleadings, particulars of fraud with dates must be stated in accordance with Order 6 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and failure to plead such particulars is generally fatal to the case, especially where fraud is of the essence.
Land & Property — Registration of Title — Bona Fide Purchaser for Value — Protection Under Section 189 RTA
A bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration under section 189 of the Registration of Titles Act obtains good title and cannot be deprived of interest in land on the ground that the proprietor through whom they were registered obtained registration through fraud or error, provided the bona fide purchaser is not themselves guilty of fraud.
Land & Property — Registered Title — Presumption of Ownership — Certificate of Title
A certificate of title which is untainted creates a presumption that the registered proprietor is the absolute owner of the property until the contrary is proved, and the register is treated as notice to the whole world that the person whose name appears therein is the lawful owner unless registration was secured by fraud.
Land & Property — Lease — Re-entry — Requirements Under Section 113 RTA
Under section 113 of the Registration of Titles Act, re-entry by a lessor requires proof that the lessor re-entered upon the premises in strict conformity with the provision of re-entry contained in the lease and that the lessor has thereupon re-entered upon and occupied the premises undisturbed by the lessee before the Registrar may make an entry of such re-entry in the register book.
Land & Property — Trespass to Land — Elements — Possession and Intention
To bring an action in trespass to land, the person bringing the action must be in actual possession or entitled to possession at the time of filing the action. The registered proprietor is entitled to possession against all those who cannot show a better title.
Damages & Quantum — Mesne Profits — Definition and Award Against Wrongful Possessor
Mesne profits means the profits which the person in wrongful possession of property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits. Wrongful possession is the essence of a claim for mesne profits, and it is awardable against a tenant who remains in possession after their interest in the property has come to an end.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Strict Proof Required
Special damages must be strictly proved at trial by the person claiming them if they are to be awarded.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (6)

  • Okello Okello v East Africa Examination Board (Court of Appeal No. 12 of 1987)
  • Stephen Lubega v Barclays Bank (Uganda) Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 2 of 1992)
  • Misango v Musigire and Others (1966) EA 390
  • Dyson v Attorney General [1911] 1 KB
  • Bidandi Sali v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 834 of 1989)
  • Charles Kassaja v Registrar of Titles (Miscellaneous Application No. 51 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Busiro Coffee Farmers and Dealers Limited v Kayongo and Others (Civil Suit 532 of 1992) [1996] UGHCLD 2 (31 May 1996)
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.