Byaruhanga V Okullu Silver Cohens & Another (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2008)
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 of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a planned and surveyed access road created by the original proprietor on subdivision existed to serve the respondents' plots, and the appellant had no right to block it by amalgamating her plots and building a dormitory across it. The trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence and did not order demolition; instead he directed an alternative route as compensation for the blocked segment, which was a proper remedy in the interest of justice. No other surveyed access road served the respondents. The court declined to interfere with the general damages award of UGX 11,000,000, which was compensatory for the suffering and inconvenience caused by the appellant's conduct.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment enforcing right of way and awarding UGX 11,000,000 general damages upheld
Facts
Tomusange originally owned a large parcel of land which was subdivided and sold to different individuals including the parties. The respondents are registered proprietors of Kyadondo Block 244 Plots 5739 and 5740, and the appellant of Plots 5515, 5516, 6074 and 6073. The deed plans showed a planned and surveyed access road (residual Plot 3994) traversing the land to connect to a public road, though it had not been physically opened. The appellant set up a school and, for expansion, acquired further plots which she amalgamated into Plot 6073, cutting across the access road. She erected a dormitory structure over the segment of the access road on her land, blocking the respondents' access and causing drainage problems from storm water. The respondents complained to local council and city authorities, but no amicable resolution was reached. They sued in the High Court seeking a declaration of a right of way, an injunction, and damages. The trial court found for the respondents and directed an alternative access route along the boundary of the appellant's land as compensation, plus general damages.
Issues
- Whether the trial Judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence in finding that the appellant had blocked an access road and caused water logging.
- Whether the trial Judge erred in granting an alternative access road that was allegedly not pleaded and not in dispute.
- Whether the trial Judge erred in ordering demolition of dormitories and creation of an unplanned road.
- Whether the trial Judge failed to find that an existing road already served the respondents' access needs.
- Whether the trial Judge erred in awarding damages against the appellant.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs here and below.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
Cases cited (6)
- Mukumbi & anor v Puran Singh Ghana [1962] E.A 630
- Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
- Rwakashaija Azarious and others v Uganda Revenue Authority (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2009)
- Selle & Another v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd & Others [1968] EA 123
- Uganda Revenue Authority v Wanume David Kitamirike [2012] UGCA 3
- Byabalema & Others v [Kampa]la Transport company (1975) Ltd [1990-1994] EA 59
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.