Wakilii

Grace Wango v Jane Ssewagudde (Trading as Kazo Summit Primary School) (Civil Suit 2316 of 2016)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 314 · 2022 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of land and declaration of trespass
Decision
Plaintiff's claim for recovery of land and declaration of trespass dismissed; Defendant's occupation of the suit land as contractual tenant upheld

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 dismissed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of land and declaration of trespass. The court held that the defendant was not a trespasser but a contractual tenant. Although the original tenancy agreement of 2009 had expired, the defendant became a tenant at sufferance and subsequently entered into a new tenancy agreement in 2013 which, despite the plaintiff's challenge to its validity, was binding on the plaintiff under the doctrine of approbation and reprobation because the plaintiff had accepted and benefited from rental payments under that agreement. The plaintiff could not challenge the validity of an agreement from which she had taken benefits.

Outcome

Plaintiff's claim for recovery of land and declaration of trespass dismissed; Defendant's occupation of the suit land as contractual tenant upheld

Facts

The plaintiff, a beneficiary of the estate of the late Mary Wango, sued the defendant for trespass to land. The defendant had initially purchased part of Mary Wango's land in 2000 and entered into a tenancy agreement in 2009 to rent the remaining portion for use as a school. The 2009 tenancy expired in 2011 but the defendant remained in occupation. After Mary Wango's death in 2012, the defendant entered into a fresh tenancy agreement in 2013 with Juliet Galiwango, the plaintiff's sister, acting on behalf of the estate. The plaintiff received her share of rental payments from 2013 onwards but later challenged the validity of the 2013 agreement on grounds that Galiwango lacked authority to act on behalf of the estate. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant had removed boundary stones and constructed a perimeter wall without proper consent.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant is a trespasser on the suit land.
  2. Whether the tenancy agreement of 5 March 2013 between Juliet Galiwango and the Defendant over the suit land was lawful.
  3. Whether the Defendant acted in breach of the tenancy agreement dated 5 March 2013 between Juliet Galiwango and the Defendant.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's suit dismissed for lack of merit.
  • Costs awarded to the Defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Trespass to Land — Elements Required for Proof
To prove trespass to land, a plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) that the disputed land belonged to him or her; (2) that the defendant entered upon that land; and (3) that the entry was unlawful in that it was made without permission or the defendant had no claim of right or interest in the land.
Tenancy — Tenant at Sufferance — Status After Expiration of Tenancy Agreement
A person who enters on land by a lawful title and, after his title has ended, continues in possession without statutory authority and without obtaining the consent of the person then entitled is a tenant at sufferance. A tenant at sufferance is deemed to have a right to possession which continues on the same terms as the original tenancy until possession is duly and properly wrested from him by the landlord.
Tenancy — When Former Tenant Becomes Trespasser
If a tenancy determines by effluxion of time or otherwise and the former tenant remains in possession against the will of the rightful owner, the former tenant is a trespasser from the date of determination of the tenancy. However, a tenant who remains in possession after expiration of a tenancy does not automatically become a trespasser; the tenant must do something adverse to the title of the rightful owner, such as refusing to pay rent and challenging or refusing to acknowledge the title of the rightful owner.
Doctrine of Approbation and Reprobation — Election to Treat Transaction as Valid
A person cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. A person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn around and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage. Where a party has elected to treat an agreement as valid by accepting benefits under it, that party is estopped from later challenging the validity of that agreement.
Preliminary Objections — Requirements — Pure Point of Law
A preliminary objection is in the nature of a demurrer. It raises a pure point of law which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if it requires the exercise of judicial discretion. Where the resolution of an objection requires evidence taken at trial, the objection cannot be sustained as a preliminary objection.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (11)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Justine E.M.N Lutaaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Sheik Muhammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1987)
  • Joy Tumushabe & Anor v M/S Anglo African Ltd & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1999)
  • Komakech Sam & Others v Ayya Corina (High Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2016)
  • African Petroleum v Owodunni (1991) 8 NWLR (pt.210) p.391
  • Golf View Inn (U) Ltd v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 358 of 2009)
  • Verschures Creameries Ltd v Hull & Netherlands Steamship Co Ltd (1921) 2 KB 612
  • Uganda Petroleum Co. Ltd v Kampala City Council (Civil Suit No. 250 of 2005)
  • Remon v City of London Real Property Company Ltd [1921] 1 KB 49
  • Havinder Jhass Singh v Rosemary Asea & Anor (High Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Grace_Wango_v_Jane_Ssewagudde_(Trading_as_Kazo_Summit_Primary_School)_(Civil_Suit_2316_of_2016)_[2022]_UGHCLD_314_(10_November_2022)
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.