Wakilii

Cranimer Wycliffe H. Wamalwa v Jood Mofokeng and Another (H.C.C.S 52 OF 1998)

High Court · [2001] UGHC 137 · 2001 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for vacant possession, damages for trespass, and injunction following defendants' alleged unlawful entry and eviction of plaintiff's tenants
Decision
Plaintiff granted vacant possession; defendants held jointly and severally liable for trespass

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 defendants committed trespass by forcibly entering and evicting the plaintiff's tenants from property the plaintiff owned under a valid High Court judgment. The court awarded vacant possession, general damages of UGX 3,750,000 for trespass, and mesne profits at UGX 150,000 per month. The second defendant court broker was held jointly liable for failing to verify title despite being warned of the ownership dispute.

Outcome

Plaintiff granted vacant possession; defendants held jointly and severally liable for trespass

Facts

The plaintiff and Hassan Kaddu Nkata obtained a Certificate of Title to Plot M 25 Nkoma Mbale East (LRV 807 Folio 7). The first defendant, Jood Mofokeng, sued them alleging fraud in H.C.C.S No. 757 of 1992, but Justice Katutsi dismissed the suit and declared the plaintiff entitled to possession under Registration of Titles Act s.184. The plaintiff then rented the property to the Islamic University in Uganda at UGX 150,000 per month. In September 1998, the second defendant, Peter Oyugi, acting on instructions from the first defendant, demanded rent arrears from the tenants, evicted them on 16 September 1998, and later obtained a Special Certificate to levy distress for UGX 26,800,000. The tenants successfully challenged the certificate, which was set aside. The plaintiff brought this suit for vacant possession, damages, and an injunction.

Issues

  1. Whether there was trespass by both defendants.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for trespass and mesne profits.
  4. What is the quantum of damages.

Orders

  • Plaintiff granted vacant possession forthwith.
  • General damages for trespass awarded at UGX 3,750,000.
  • Mesne profits awarded at UGX 150,000 per month from January 2001 until vacation of the premises.
  • Perpetual injunction granted to restrain defendants, their agents or servants from further interference with plaintiff's proprietary or contractual rights over the suit property.
  • Defendants shall bear the costs of this suit.
  • Decretal amount shall bear interest at court rate from the time of judgment.
  • Costs shall bear interest at court rate from the date of certification till payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Registered Proprietor's Rights — Trespass Against Third Parties
A registered proprietor derives proprietary rights from a valid court judgment confirming his title, and those rights are good against any other person. Any person interfering unduly with the proprietor's rights to quiet possession and enjoyment of the property is a trespasser and gives rise to a cause of action.
Res Judicata — Fresh Cause of Action for Trespass
Where ownership of property has been finally determined in an earlier suit, subsequent acts of forcible entry and eviction by the unsuccessful party constitute a fresh cause of action in trespass and are not barred by the principle of res judicata.
Trespass to Land — Registered Proprietor's Right to Sue
A registered proprietor of land is entitled to maintain an action in trespass even if he is not in actual physical possession of the property at the time of the trespass.
Court Broker Liability — Protection Under Judicature Statute
A court broker is protected by s.48(2) of the Judicature Statute 1996 only in respect of lawful acts done in execution of a court order or warrant. Where a court broker acts on private instructions rather than a court order, or where he executes a warrant in favour of the wrong person despite being put on notice of a title dispute, his actions are not covered by the statutory protection and he is personally liable for trespass.
Mesne Profits — Measure of Damages for Wrongful Occupation
In trespass to property, damages are measured according to the loss suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the trespass. The normal measure of damages for wrongful occupation or use is the market rental value of the property for the period of wrongful occupation or user.
Exemplary Damages — Malicious or Oppressive Trespass
Exemplary damages may be awarded in cases of trespass to property where the defendant's conduct has been calculated to make a profit which may exceed compensation payable to the plaintiff, and where compensatory damages are inadequate for the purposes of punishing and deterring the defendant.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (12)

  • Jood Mofokeng v Hassan Kaddu Nkata and Cranmer Wycliffe Hirya Wamalwa (H.C.C.S No. 757 of 1992)
  • Semakula v Magala and Others [1979] H.C.B. 90
  • Kamunye v Pioneer General Assurance Society Ltd [1971] E.A. 263
  • Notco (Kampala) Ltd v United Garment Industry Ltd [1978] H.C.B. 161
  • Souza Figueiredo and Co. Ltd v George Panago Paulos and Others [1959] E.A. 756
  • Yekoyasi Mulindwa v Attorney General [1985] H.C.B. 70
  • Olinda De Souza Finquerido v Kassamali Manzi [1962] E.A. 756
  • Moya Drift Farm Ltd v Theuri [1975] E.A. 114
  • Fenekansi Semakula v Fred Musoke and East African General Insurance Ltd [1981] H.C.B. 46
  • Gordon A Parrot v D.L Musoke Sempala [1978] H.C.B. 50
  • Visran Karsan v Bhatt [1956] E.A. 789
  • Mary Kyeyune v James Zziwa (H.C.C.S No. 640 of 1992)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Cranimer Wycliffe H. Wamalwa v Jood Mofokeng and Another (H.C.C.S 52 OF 1998) [2001] UGHC 137 (2 March 2001)
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.