Eva Nakanyike v Damba Alfred (Civil Suit No. 370 of 2021)
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
Held that the plaintiff, as the only surviving daughter of the late Festo Kanyike, owns the kibanja interest in the undeveloped portions of the suit land under customary tenure. The defendant is not a trespasser but a licensee with equitable proprietary interests arising from proprietary estoppel in respect of land developed by his late father with permanent structures. The defendant's father could not qualify as a bonafide occupant under the Land Act having entered the land only six years before the 1995 Constitution. The plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession of the undeveloped portions.
Outcome
Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff with partial relief granted. Defendant ordered to vacate undeveloped portions within 90 days but retains equitable interest in developed portions.
Facts
The plaintiff claimed ownership of a kibanja at Ssenge as the only surviving daughter of the late Festo Kanyike who died in the 1980s. In 1989, the defendant's father, Ngabompya Kranimer, came to the suit land claiming to be a clan brother of the plaintiff's father and was allowed to stay. Ngabompya constructed two residential houses, buried relatives on the land, and in 2007 purchased legal interest from the registered proprietor Segujja Simon. After Ngabompya's death in 2013, the defendant as administrator of his estate refused to vacate despite the plaintiff's demands. The plaintiff had sold portions of the land during Ngabompya's lifetime without objection from him. Both parties' relatives were buried on the land, with the plaintiff's father being the first person buried there.
Issues
- Whether the land belongs to the Plaintiff as the only surviving child to the late Festo Kanyike?
- Whether the Defendant is a trespasser on the suit land?
- What are the remedies available to the parties?
Orders
- A declaration that the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the kibanja interest on the suit land that contains her house and the undeveloped section with the plantations/gardens, subject to the Defendant's legal interests acquired from Segujja Samson in 2007.
- A declaration that arising from the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, the Defendant is not a trespasser on the suit land since his late father acquired equitable proprietary interests in respect of part of the suit land developed with permanent structures.
- The Defendant and his family are ordered to vacate the undeveloped part of the suit land and grant vacant possession to the plaintiff within 90 days from the date of this Judgment.
- An Order of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant or his agents/servants from claiming an equitable interest in the undeveloped part of suit Kibanja owned by the Plaintiff.
- A declaration that the burial ground forms part of the Plaintiff's kibanja interest. The Defendant's relatives buried on the burial ground should not be exhumed. The Defendant is directed not to bury any more of his relatives on the burial ground.
- The Plaintiff is awarded General Damages of UGX 10,000,000.
- The Plaintiff is awarded interest at the court rate of 8% per annum on general damages from the date of judgment until payment in full.
- The Plaintiff is awarded costs of this suit.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (16)
- Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)
- Constitution of Uganda Article 237(1)
- Constitution of Uganda Article 237(3)
- Evidence Act Cap 8 s.101
- Evidence Act Cap 8 s.103
- Land Act Cap 236 s.2
- Land Act Cap 236 s.3
- Land Act Cap 236 s.29(2)
- Land Act Cap 236 s.30(1)(a)
- Land Reform Decree 1975 s.1
- Land Reform Decree 1975 s.3
- Land Reform Decree 1975 s.3(2)
- Land Reform Decree 1975 s.4(1)
- Land Reform Decree 1975 s.4(2)
- Public Lands Act 1969
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
Cases cited (17)
- Isreal Kabwa v Martin Banoba Musiga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1995)
- Kithende Kalibogha & 2 Others v Eleanora Wismer (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2010)
- Muhumuza & 2 Others v Mbabulima Jeremiah (High Court Civil Suit No. 038 of 2022)
- Pakzad Ali Reza & Another v Kiwanuka Andrew & Another (Civil Suit No. 780 of 2015)
- Marko Matovu v Mohammed Sseviri & another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1986)
- Lawrence Kitts v Bugisu Cooperative Union (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2004)
- Godfrey Ojwanga v Wilson Bagonza (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2002)
- Justine E.M.N. Lutaaya Vs Stirling Civil Engineering Company
- F.D.K Zaabwe v Orient Bank & 5 Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 715 of 1999)
- Sheikh Muhammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 4 of 1987)
- Ocen Renaldo v Okot Justin Orunya (High Court Civil Appeal No. 006 of 2013)
- Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] 1 Ch 183
- Willmott v Barber (1880) 15 Ch D 96
- Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendu Edward (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
- Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
- Livingstone v Ronoyard's Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 259
- Paul Kisekka Saku v. Seventh Day Adventist
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.