Wakilii

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

High Court · [1996] UGHC 56 · 1996 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit seeking declaration of title, eviction order, and mesne profits following re-entry by lessor and cancellation of predecessor lease
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally with declaration of title, eviction order, mesne profits, and interest

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 plaintiff, as registered lessee, was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration protected by section 189 of the Registration of Titles Act, and that the defendants failed to prove fraud in the lessor's re-entry. The defendants' occupation following determination of the predecessor lease constituted trespass. The court awarded the plaintiff a declaration of title, an eviction order, and mesne profits of UGX 25,000,000 plus interest at 50% per annum from the date of judgment.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally with declaration of title, eviction order, mesne profits, and interest

Facts

The plaintiff company held a 49-year registered lease over Plot 128 Block 176, Tebalowoza, Mukono District, registered on 29 November 1990. The property had previously been subject to a 99-year lease commencing in 1954 in favour of Farms and Plantations Ltd, a company owned by Ugandans of Asian extraction. In 1972, the owners were expelled and the property was expropriated and vested in the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board. The lessee failed to pay ground rent from 1962 onwards, and the lessor, George William Muwonge, successfully applied for determination of the lease and re-entry, which the Registrar of Titles effected in August 1990. The Custodian Board had allocated the property to the defendants in 1989. When the plaintiff company demanded vacant possession following its registration as lessee, the defendants resisted, claiming they were tenants of the Custodian Board. The plaintiff had previously filed suit in the Chief Magistrate's Court and obtained an ex parte decree, which was set aside; the plaintiff then withdrew that suit and instituted the present proceedings.

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 granted against the defendants.
  • Mesne profits awarded in the sum of UGX 25,000,000.
  • 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

Land & Property — Leasehold — Re-entry — Requirements for valid re-entry under Registration of Titles Act s.113
A lessor seeking to effect re-entry under section 113 of the Registration of Titles Act must prove to the satisfaction of the Registrar that re-entry was effected in strict conformity with the provision for re-entry contained in the lease or under the power in section 102, and that the lessor or transferee has re-entered upon and occupied the premises by himself or tenants undisturbed by the lessee.
Land & Property — Registration of Titles — Bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration — Protection under Registration of Titles Act s.189
A bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration under section 189 of the Registration of Titles Act obtains a good title and cannot be deprived of interest in land on the ground that the proprietor through or under whom the claim was registered obtained registration through fraud or error, even if the purchaser acquired from a proprietor who previously obtained registration by fraud, provided the purchaser is not guilty of fraud.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Fraud — Requirement to plead particulars of fraud
Where a party relies on fraud, the party must give particulars of fraud with dates in the pleadings in accordance with Order 6 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Failure to plead particulars of fraud is fatal to the case, especially where fraud is of the essence, though the court may consider the issue where fraud does not touch the registered proprietor's title and both parties have made submissions on it, in line with the principle that substantive justice should be administered without undue regard to technicalities.
Tort Law — Trespass to Land — Requirements for action in trespass — Possession and title
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. A registered proprietor is presumed to be the absolute owner until the contrary is proved and is entitled to possession against all those who cannot show a better title. A person who continues in occupation of land after determination of their lease becomes a trespasser.
Damages & Quantum — Mesne Profits — Definition and assessment
Mesne profits are defined in section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act as 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 due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession. 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.

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 (U) 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 Ltd v Kayongo and Others (Civil Suit 532 of 1992) [1996] UGHC 56 (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.