Wakilii

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

High Court · [1996] UGHC 89 · 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 following expiry of former lease
Decision
Defendants to be evicted from the suit premises; plaintiff declared registered proprietor entitled to possession

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

Held that the plaintiff, registered as lessee after the lessor effected re-entry and terminated the prior lease to Farms and Plantations Ltd, acquired its interest as a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration under section 189 of the Registration of Titles Act. The defendants failed to prove fraud affecting the plaintiff's title. Their continued occupation after lease termination constituted trespass. Plaintiff entitled to declaration of proprietorship, eviction order, and mesne profits of UGX 25,000,000.

Outcome

Defendants to be evicted from the suit premises; plaintiff declared registered proprietor entitled to possession

Facts

Plaintiff company was registered lessee of Plot 128 Block 176 Tebalowoza, Mukono District, on 29 November 1990 under a 49-year lease from George William Muwonge, the mailo owner. The property had previously been subject to a 99-year lease commencing 18 August 1954 in favour of Farms and Plantations Ltd, whose Asian owners were expelled in 1972. The lease was expropriated and vested in the Departed Asian Property Custodian Board. Ground rent had not been paid since 1962. The lessor Muwonge successfully applied for determination of the lease and noting of re-entry, effected by the Registrar of Titles around 14 August 1990. The Custodian Board allocated the property to the defendants in 1989. When the plaintiff demanded vacant possession, the defendants resisted, claiming tenancy under the Custodian Board. Plaintiff initially obtained ex parte decree from Chief Magistrate's Court Mukono, which was set aside; plaintiff then withdrew that suit and filed the present action seeking declaration, 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 issued against the defendants.
  • Mesne profits of UGX 25,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Interest at 50% per annum from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Fraud — Requirement to plead particulars of fraud
Where a party alleges fraud, they must give particulars of fraud being relied upon in accordance with Order 6 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules; failure to plead particulars of fraud is generally fatal to the case, especially where fraud is of the essence.
Land & Property — Leases — Re-entry — Requirements under Registration of Titles Act section 113
Under section 113 of the Registration of Titles Act, for the Registrar to make an entry of re-entry in the register book, it must be proved that the lessor has re-entered upon the premises in strict conformity with the provision of re-entry contained in the lease or under the power of section 102, and that the lessor has thereupon re-entered upon and occupied the premises by himself or tenants undisturbed by the lessee.
Land & Property — Registration of Title — Bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration — 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 their interest in land on the ground that the proprietor through or under whom they registered as proprietor obtained registration through fraud or error, unless the bona fide purchaser is themselves guilty of fraud.
Land & Property — Registration of Title — Certificate of title — Indefeasibility — Presumption of absolute ownership
A registered proprietor issued with a certificate of title which is untainted is presumed to be the absolute owner of the property until the contrary is proved; the register is treated as notice to the whole world that the person whose name appears therein is the lawful owner unless it can be proved that registration was secured by fraud.
Tort Law — Trespass to Land — Elements — Possession and right to possession
To bring an action in trespass to land, the person bringing the action must be in actual possession or entitled to its possession at the time of filing the action; a registered proprietor entitled to possession is entitled to bring a claim in trespass against those who cannot show a better title.
Damages & Quantum — Mesne Profits — Definition and basis of award
Mesne profits as defined in section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act 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 very 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; failure to prove special damages results in no award being made.

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 Tom Kayongo and Others (Civil Suit 532 of 1992) [1996] UGHC 89 (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.