Wakilii

Energo Uganda Company Limited v Rubaramira & Another (Civil Appeal No. 183 of 2013)

Court of Appeal · [2020] UGCA 2082 · 2020 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal and cross-appeal from a High Court judgment awarding damages for trespass to land
Decision
Appeal and cross-appeal both dismissed; High Court judgment and damages award upheld

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 Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, upholding the High Court's award for trespass to land. The court found the appellant excavated murram beyond the demarcated area, destroying the respondent's tea plantation and trees, constituting trespass. Because the trespass was a frolic of the appellant's own, the Attorney General as authorised undertaker had no contractual duty to indemnify the appellant. The doctrine of approbation and reprobation did not apply, since the respondent was paid only for murram, not for destroyed property. The trial judge's award of Shs 134,448,000 special damages and Shs 20,000,000 general damages was well reasoned and warranted no interference.

Outcome

Appeal and cross-appeal both dismissed; High Court judgment and damages award upheld

Facts

The 1st respondent, registered proprietor of land at Rwibaale village, Kyenjojo district, entered into a February 2004 agreement with the appellant company allowing extraction of murram for road works from a demarcated two-acre area called Mugo Hill, on the condition that the tea plantation and forest be preserved. The area was surveyed, demarcated with tree stumps, poles and stones. In March 2004, the appellant's workmen excavated murram beyond the demarcated area, encroaching about 80 yards onto a natural forest and the tea plantation, uprooting trees and pushing soil and debris over the tea. Photographs recorded the destruction and a District Production Officer assessed the extent of damage. The appellant's surveyor admitted he did not return to verify where excavation actually occurred. The appellant was paid for all murram taken but the respondent was never compensated for the destroyed tea and trees. The respondent sued for general and special damages and joined the Attorney General as third party alleged to be liable to indemnify. The trial court found trespass and awarded damages, leading to this appeal and cross-appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant trespassed on the 1st respondent's land by excavating murram outside the agreed area and destroying crops and trees.
  2. Whether the appellant was on a frolic of its own such that the 2nd respondent (Attorney General) had no obligation to indemnify.
  3. Whether the 1st respondent approbated and reprobated the murram extraction agreement thereby negating the alleged trespass.
  4. Whether the 1st respondent had locus standi to oppose the appellant's case against the 2nd respondent (third party).
  5. Whether the general and special damages awarded by the trial court were manifestly excessive (and, on cross-appeal, inordinately low).

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The cross-appeal is dismissed for lack of merit.
  • The judgment and orders of the trial Judge are upheld.
  • The respondent to have the costs of the dismissed appeal.
  • The appellant to have the costs of the dismissed cross-appeal.
  • The trial court's orders as to costs remain unaltered.

Rules and key headnotes

Trespass to Land — Unauthorised Excavation Beyond Contractually Demarcated Area
Trespass occurs when a person makes an unauthorised entry upon land and thereby interferes with another's lawful possession; a contractor who excavates beyond the demarcated area agreed for murram extraction commits trespass on the landowner's remaining property.
Indemnity — Employer Not Liable to Indemnify Contractor for Contractor's Own Tortious Acts
An authorised undertaker of public works who engages a contractor bears no obligation, in law or equity, to indemnify the contractor for liabilities the contractor incurs while committing trespass on a third party's land, as such acts constitute a frolic of the contractor's own.
Approbation and Reprobation — Acceptance of Payment for Distinct Contractual Benefit
The doctrine of approbation and reprobation does not arise where a party accepts payment for the specific benefit contracted for (murram extracted) while separately claiming compensation for destruction caused by conduct outside the agreed terms.
Appellate Interference with Damages Award — Wrong Principle or Manifestly Excessive
An appellate court may interfere with a trial judge's damages award only where the judge acted on a wrong principle or where the award is so manifestly high or low as to occasion a miscarriage of justice.
First Appeal — Duty of Appellate Court to Reappraise Evidence
On a first appeal the court must reappraise the evidence and draw its own inferences on issues of both fact and law, while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Rules of the Court of Appeal (Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions) r.30

Cases cited (6)

  • Justine E. M. Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Edward Kironde Kagwa v Costaperaria and another [1963] EA 213
  • Narsensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Bogere Moses vs Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1997)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Mbogo v Shah [1968] EA 93

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.

Energo Uganda Company Limited v Rubaramira & Another (Civil Appeal No. 183 of 2013) [2020] UGCA 2082 (7 August 2020)
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.