Byarugaba v Tumuhimbise & Another (Civil Suit 21 of 2020)
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 defendants trespassed on plaintiff's land beyond the portion they were permitted to occupy. The agreement dated 29/05/2018 was void for lack of consideration. Defendants were liable in conversion for selling plaintiff's cows. Plaintiff declared owner of the suit property beyond the perimeter wall marking defendants' permitted portion, which defendants may retain upon full payment of agreed purchase price. General damages of UGX 7,000,000 awarded for trespass and conversion.
Outcome
Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff. Defendants' counterclaim dismissed. Defendants ordered to pay outstanding purchase price, evicted from property beyond perimeter wall, and structures to be demolished. General damages awarded.
Facts
Between 1997 and 2005, plaintiff purchased parcels of land in Mutojo Village where he established a dairy cattle project. In 2011, at the request of family members, plaintiff allowed his brother (1st defendant) to build a house on a 50 x 100 feet plot for UGX 21,000,000, of which UGX 18,000,000 was paid. Plaintiff was serving as a Catholic chaplain at Nyakibale Hospital with limited time to supervise the land. In plaintiff's absence, 1st defendant exceeded the permitted portion, constructing additional buildings, selling plaintiff's dairy cows, and attempting to sell part of the land to a third party. In December 2017, 1st defendant issued an apology admitting trespass and selling cows. In May 2018, parties attended mediation resulting in an agreement drafted by a lawyer, which plaintiff later challenged as extortionist and void for lack of consideration.
Issues
- Whether the Defendants are trespassers on the suit land.
- Whether the Defendants are liable for deceit and misrepresentation.
- Whether the agreement dated 29/05/2018 is valid.
- Whether the Defendants have any claim over the suit land.
- Whether the Defendants are liable in conversion for alleged sale of the Plaintiff's cows.
Orders
- Declaration that the Plaintiff is owner of the suit property beyond the brick perimeter wall which shall be the boundary between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.
- Order that the Defendants pay to the Plaintiff UGX 3,000,000 as the outstanding purchase price of their portion of land.
- Declaration that the Defendants trespassed on the Plaintiff's property beyond the perimeter brick wall.
- Declaration that the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants dated 29/05/2018 is null and void.
- Order for demolition of the structures built on the Plaintiff's property beyond the perimeter wall.
- Order of eviction against the Defendants from the property exceeding the perimeter wall.
- General damages of UGX 7,000,000 awarded to the Plaintiff.
- Interest on UGX 3,000,000 and UGX 7,000,000 at Court rate from the date of judgment until payment in full.
- Costs of the suit and the counterclaim awarded to the Plaintiff.
- Counterclaim dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
Cases cited (4)
- Justine E.M.N Lutaya v Sterling (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
- Kyoma's Farm and Tea Estate Ltd v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 14 of 2005)
- Mukula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Emmanuel Nsubuga & Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
- Vincent Mukasa v Nile Safaris Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1997)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.