Damara & Another v Tabahikiza (Civil Appeal No. 101 of 2014)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal, on a second appeal, allowed the appeal. It held that the first appellate judge erred in awarding general damages to the 2nd plaintiff who was never a party to the appeal and led no evidence; in awarding exemplary damages that were neither pleaded nor prayed for, since a party cannot be granted relief not claimed in the plaint; and in awarding general compensatory damages of UGX 50,000,000 based on speculation without any valuation evidence establishing the acreage or value of the land. The High Court judgment was set aside and the trial court's decision restored, with costs to the appellants in both courts.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and trial court decision restored

Facts

The respondent, together with Grace Kasheingejja, sued the appellants in the Chief Magistrates Court at Luwero for trespass to land at Kibaambire Village, Luwero District. Grace Kasheingejja abandoned the suit and the magistrate dismissed the claim. The respondent appealed to the High Court (Land Division), which upheld the appeal, found the respondent and Kasheingejja were lawful and bonafide occupants of the suit land estimated at 50 and 30 acres respectively, and awarded a total of UGX 80,000,000 in general damages and UGX 20,000,000 as exemplary damages. The plaint had prayed for declarations of occupancy, an injunction, an eviction order, general damages for trespass, interest and costs, but did not pray for exemplary damages. No valuation evidence established the acreage or value of the land. Evidence indicated the respondent was a licensee who settled on the land in 1999 to graze cattle. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the first appellate judge erred in awarding general damages to a person who was not a party to the appeal, did not sign the plaint, and led no evidence.
2. Whether the first appellate judge erred in awarding exemplary damages that were never pleaded or prayed for.
3. Whether the respondent was a bonafide occupant or customary tenant on the suit land.
4. Whether the first appellate judge erred in awarding general compensatory damages of UGX 50,000,000 based on speculation without valuation evidence.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• The judgment and orders of the High Court (Land Division) set aside.
• The judgment of the trial court restored.
• Costs awarded to the appellants in the Court of Appeal and in the courts below.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.72
• Judicature Act s.33
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 Rule 1(g)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)(e)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 237(8)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 237(9)
• Land Act Cap 227 s.29(2)
• Land Act Cap 227 s.29(3)(c)

Cases cited (5)

• Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129
• Obongo v Kisumu Municipal Council [1971] EA 91
• Esso Standard (U) Ltd v Semu Amanu Opio (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1993)
• Fang Min v Belex Tours and Travel Limited (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2013)
• Kampala District Land Board and Another v National Housing and Construction Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2004)

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.

• Mulondo v Namara and Another (Civil Suit 184 of 2017)

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