Wakilii

Cuthbert J Obwangor and Anna Maria Obwangor v Soroti Municipal Council and Elias Michael Ekayu (Civil Suit 2 of 1992)

High Court · [2002] UGHC 147 · 2002 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of lease contract and trespass arising from competing claims over leasehold property
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiffs with declaration that their title is valid, eviction order and permanent injunction against the second defendant, and damages awarded against both defendants

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Soroti Municipal Council breached its lease contract with the plaintiffs by granting a lease over part of the same property to the second defendant, after having waived the building covenant through conduct by issuing an occupation permit and collecting rent for over twenty years. The second defendant was held liable in trespass for deliberately entering and developing land registered to the plaintiffs without their consent. The plaintiffs' certificate of title remained valid and the subsequent lease to the second defendant was declared null and void.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiffs with declaration that their title is valid, eviction order and permanent injunction against the second defendant, and damages awarded against both defendants

Facts

The plaintiffs were granted a lease over Plot 13-15 Gweri Road, Soroti, on 1 June 1965 for an initial two-year term, later extended to 49 years on 22 September 1965. The lease contained building covenants requiring construction of a fuel service station, restaurant and bar by 31 May 1967. The plaintiffs constructed a petrol station which they subleased to BP Shell, paid ground rent and assessment rates regularly, and were issued an occupation permit by the first defendant. However, they did not complete all buildings due to political disturbances between 1969 and 1991. On 16 May 1991, the first defendant granted a lease over Plot 15 Gweri Road (which formed part of Plot 13-15) to the second defendant, who then entered the land, constructed a fence and foundation, cut down trees, and began building. The plaintiffs, as registered proprietors, brought this suit for breach of contract and trespass.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a building covenant between the plaintiffs and Soroti Municipal Council when a grant of the disputed plot was made to the second defendant.
  2. Whether the plaintiffs complied with the terms of their original contract with Soroti Municipal Council.
  3. Whether the first defendant Soroti Municipal Council committed a breach of its contract with the plaintiffs and if so whether the second defendant is liable.
  4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the remedies sought.
  5. What is the quantum of damages for the alleged breach of contract and trespass.

Orders

  • Declaration that the plaintiffs' Certificate of Title issued on 22 September 1965 for a term of 49 years is still valid and the purported grant of a lease offer by the first defendant to the second defendant is null and void.
  • Order that the first defendant shall comply with the terms of the lease made between itself and the plaintiffs.
  • First defendant to pay general damages of UGX 8,000,000 for breach of the lease agreement.
  • Eviction order against the second defendant.
  • Permanent injunction restraining the second defendant, his agents, employees, servants and workmen from re-entering the suit property.
  • Second defendant to pay general damages for trespass of UGX 5,000,000.
  • Second defendant to pay special damages of UGX 398,180.
  • Interest on general damages at court rate from date of judgment till payment in full.
  • Interest at 20% per annum on special damages from date of filing suit till payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Leasehold — Building Covenants — Waiver by Conduct
Where a lessor issues an occupation permit to a lessee before full compliance with building covenants, does not object to extension of the lease to full term, and continues to demand and receive ground rent and assessment rates for over twenty years, the lessor waives its right to re-entry or forfeiture for non-compliance with the building covenants.
Leasehold — Re-entry and Forfeiture — Waiver
Breach of covenant by a lessee does not lead to automatic re-entry or forfeiture; the lessor must elect between waiver and re-entry, and re-entry requires some unequivocal act showing the lessor's intention to terminate the lease.
Registration of Titles — Conclusiveness of Certificate
A certificate of title under the Registration of Titles Act is conclusive evidence of the proprietorship of land and establishes the registered proprietor's title against competing claims.
Trespass to Land — Elements and Liability
Trespass to land is constituted by unlawful entry onto land without the consent of the owner, and liability arises even if no actual damage is caused by the entry.
Trespass — Remedies — Eviction and Injunction
Where trespass to land is proved, the plaintiff is entitled to repossession by eviction order, a perpetual injunction to prevent continuance or repetition of the trespass, and general damages even if no actual loss is suffered.
Breach of Contract — General Damages — Measure
The purpose of general damages for breach of contract is to place the plaintiff in the same position in monetary terms as if the breach had not occurred, and the party claiming damages must provide evidence to guide the court as to the degree of loss suffered.
Special Damages — Proof Requirements
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; a claim will succeed only to the extent that evidence supports the specific heads and amounts claimed.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (6)

  • Sebuliba v Co-operative Bank Ltd [1982] HCB 129
  • Commissioner for Lands v Sheik Mohamed Bashir [1958] EA 45
  • Nakari & 2 Others v Masaba Growers Co-operative Union [1985] HCB 38
  • Sheik Mohamed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (HCCA No. 4 of 1997)
  • Philip v Ward [1956] 1 All ER 874
  • Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co [1880] 5 AC 25

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Cuthbert J Obwangor and Anna Maria Obwangor v Soroti Municipal Council and Elias Michael Ekayu (Civil Suit 2 of 1992) [2002] UGHC 147 (18 March 2002)
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.