Ebuye v Attorney General (CIVIL SUIT No. 896 OF 1993)
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 High Court held that the plaintiff was the undisputed leasehold proprietor of the suit land and entitled to possession. The government's purported acquisition of the land under Statutory Instrument No. 19 of 1989 was rendered void ab initio due to failure to comply with mandatory requirements under the Land Acquisition Act: no service of the declaration on the registered proprietor, no gazette publication of the notice, and unlawful taking of possession by officers not empowered to do so. The acquisition had in any event been revoked before the Directorate of Water Development took possession. The court awarded special damages of UGX 12,800,000 and general damages of UGX 10,000,000.
Outcome
Judgment entered for the plaintiff; defendant ordered to deliver vacant possession and pay damages and costs.
Facts
The plaintiff held a leasehold interest in plot 39, Commercial Street, Port Bell from 1986, initially for 2 years, then extended to 6 years from 1988 and 4 years from 1994. In 1989 the Minister of Lands issued Statutory Instrument No. 19 acquiring the plot for government use. The plaintiff was not served with the acquisition notice. In 1992 the Minister revoked the acquisition order. Despite the revocation, in July 1993 officers of the Directorate of Water Development forcibly evicted the plaintiff from the land, destroyed his temporary structures, and removed building materials he had placed there. The plaintiff had obtained building plan approval in 1986 and had commenced development. The Directorate continued to occupy the land after the eviction, using it partly as a store and partly as a car washing bay.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff is the proprietor of the suit land.
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit land as against the defendant.
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the other remedies sought in the plaint.
Orders
- Defendant to give vacant possession of the land to the plaintiff within 30 days from date of judgment.
- Special damages of UGX 12,800,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
- General damages of UGX 10,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
- Interest on special and general damages at court rate from date of filing until full payment.
- Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
Cases cited (5)
- Ssewanyana v Aliker (Supreme Court Appeal No. 4 of 1990)
- Bishopgate Motor Finance Co. Ltd vs Transport Brakes Ltd
- Kwarakunde v Attorney General (1984) HCB 60
- Osiyinge v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 291 of 1988)
- Katatumba v Attorney General (1991) HCB 99
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.