Fowler and Another v Busingye (Miscellaneous Application No. 111 of 2013)
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's plaint failed to disclose a cause of action. The court found the plaintiff had no legal right to construct an access road through the defendants' land, as the disputed driveway was entirely part of the defendants' registered title. The plaintiff already had direct access to Ismail Road. KCCA's site meeting confirmed the access road encroached on defendants' property and the building infringed their privacy rights under Article 27 of the Constitution. Plaint rejected and suit dismissed.
Outcome
Plaint rejected and struck out; civil suit dismissed; counterclaim to proceed before another judge
Facts
The applicants were registered proprietors of Plot 57A Ismail Road, Mbuya. The respondent owned adjacent Plot 57B. The respondent began constructing apartment blocks, obtaining permits from Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA). The applicants complained that Block D would invade their privacy and that the respondent intended to use the applicants' driveway as access, which was entirely part of the applicants' registered land. Following a joint site meeting on 6 August 2012, KCCA confirmed the applicants' concerns: the building infringed privacy and the proposed access road encroached on Plot 57A. KCCA halted construction on Block D and the driveway. The respondent filed suit seeking declarations that the applicants' actions attempting to block development were wrongful and claiming an easement through the applicants' land. The applicants applied to reject the plaint for disclosing no cause of action.
Issues
- Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action.
- What are the remedies available in the circumstances?
Orders
- The plaint does not disclose a cause of action against the applicants/defendants. The plaint is hereby rejected and struck out.
- Civil Suit No. 611 of 2012 is accordingly dismissed with costs to the defendants.
- This application is allowed in the terms and orders being sought therein with costs to the applicants.
- The counterclaim being an independent suit shall proceed on hearing inter partes before another Judge of this High Court of Uganda, Land Division, since the presiding judge is on transfer to the Criminal Division.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (11)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 11(a)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 11(e)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 19
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
- Constitution of Uganda Article 26
- Constitution of Uganda Article 27
- Constitution of Uganda Article 43
- Public Health (Building) Rules rule 10(k)
- Public Health (Building) Rules rule 28
- Access to Roads Act Cap 350 s.2
- Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations 1977 rule 8
Cases cited (10)
- Mulindwa Birimumaso v Government Central Purchasing Corporation (HCCS No. 674 of 1998)
- Auto Garage v Motokov (No. 3) [1971] EA 514
- Drummond Jackson v British Medical Association [1970] 1 WLR 668
- N.A.S Airport Service Ltd v Attorney General of Kenya [1959] EA 53
- Wycliffe Kiggundu v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1992)
- Castelino v Rodrigues [1972] CA 223
- Charles Kabunga v Christopher Baryaruha and 3 Others [1995] KALR 535
- Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (SCCA No. 23 of 1998)
- Mayers and Another v Akira Ranch Ltd [1974] EA 169
- ISMAIL SERUGO (SUPRA)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.