Emmaus Foundation v Kawaddwa (Civil Suit No. 53 of 2011)
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 a defendant who enters registered land without the consent of the registered proprietor is a trespasser, even where the defendant claims prior ownership interest. The plaintiff, as registered proprietor holding a certificate of title under the Registration of Titles Act s.59, was conclusive evidence of ownership. The defendant was found to be a trespasser with no valid claim, and the plaintiff was declared the rightful owner entitled to quiet possession and damages.
Outcome
Defendant declared a trespasser; plaintiff granted quiet possession, permanent injunction, and damages of UGX 100,000,000 with interest and costs
Facts
The plaintiff, Emmaus Foundation Ltd, was the registered proprietor of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 243 Plot 214 at Luzira, having purchased it from Parriet Preparatory School Ltd in June 2010 for UGX 720,000,000. The plaintiff conducted thorough due diligence before purchase, settling debts owed by the vendor to Stanbic Bank and other creditors. In November 2010, the defendant Antwani Kawaddwa, a former registered proprietor who had transferred the entire two-acre parcel to Parriet Preparatory School Ltd in March 2004, forcibly entered the suit land and began constructing a structure, claiming ownership of one acre which he alleged he had never sold. The land had been mortgaged twice by Parriet and publicly advertised for sale by Stanbic Bank in February 2010, but the defendant took no action to assert any claim until after the plaintiff's purchase. The defendant filed a counterclaim alleging fraud in the 2004 transfer but adduced no evidence as the suit proceeded exparte.
Issues
- Whether the defendant's entry upon the suit land and attempting to construct a house thereon without the plaintiff's consent constituted trespass.
- Whether the defendant has any valid claim of title in the suit land or any part thereof.
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought.
Orders
- The plaintiff is declared the rightful owner of the suit land.
- The defendant is declared a trespasser on the plaintiff's suit land comprised in Block 243 Plot 214 at Kyadondo County Mengo District.
- The plaintiff shall enjoy quiet possession of the suit land.
- Order of eviction against the defendant abandoned by plaintiff.
- A permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his relatives, family members, workers/agents and any persons claiming title from him from claiming, doing any act and further entering the suit property is granted.
- Ug. Shs 100,000,000/= awarded to the plaintiff as general damages.
- Interest at Court rate per annum awarded on the damages from the date of judgment till payment in full.
- Costs of the suit and the counterclaim awarded to the plaintiff.
- The defendant's counterclaim is dismissed with costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
Cases cited (6)
- Abdul Karim v Kabarebe & Mrs Bakitari (HCCS No. 373 of 1991)
- David Sejjaka Nalima v Rebecca Musoke (SCCA No. 12 of 1985)
- Simon Kato Bugoba v Samuel Kigozi & Muyanja Mbabali (HCCS No. 534 of 2004)
- Makerere University v St. Mark Education Centre & Another (HCCS No. 378 of 1990)
- Abram Kitumba v Uganda Telecommunication Corporation (HCCS No. 395 of 1991)
- Foods & Beverages Ltd v Israel Musisi Opoya (SCCA No. 32 of 1992)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.