Wakilii

Gwendoline Kainembabazi and 4 Others v Namusisi and Another (Civil Suit No. 843 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 61 · 2022 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for trespass and vacant possession decided ex parte
Decision
Defendants ordered to vacate the suit land within 3 months; permanently restrained from dealing with the suit property; general damages and costs awarded to plaintiffs

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 court held that defendants who occupied land under a deceased squatter who had been granted temporary licence by the registered proprietor were trespassers. A licensee by invitation holds no proprietary interest and cannot transfer any valid interest to family members. Certificate of title is conclusive proof of ownership. General damages of UGX 60,000,000 awarded with 20% interest per annum.

Outcome

Defendants ordered to vacate the suit land within 3 months; permanently restrained from dealing with the suit property; general damages and costs awarded to plaintiffs

Facts

The late John Wycliffe Rutagremwa Kazzora purchased and was registered as proprietor of land comprised in Kyaddondo Block 253, Plot 82 on 21 May 1963. During the 1971 war he went into exile and upon his return in 1986 found one Nyamumiza occupying the land as a squatter. Nyamumiza admitted he was a squatter and requested time to leave but died before vacating. Kazzora gave the land to his daughter (the first plaintiff) as a wedding gift. Through lawyers, Kazzora notified Nyamumiza's family (the defendants) that they were illegal occupants. In 2006 the defendants erected unauthorized structures which Kampala City Council ordered demolished. Kazzora died in November 1999. The plaintiffs obtained letters of administration in January 2000 and continued to notify the defendants of their trespass. The defendants erected further illegal structures in 2008 which were demolished. The defendants did not enter appearance after being served by substituted service.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants are trespassers on the suit land.
  2. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • The defendants are trespassers on the suit land comprised in Plot 82 Block 253, Lukuli Kyaddondo as it belongs to the estate of the late John Wycliffe Rutagremwa Kazzora.
  • An order of vacant possession of the suit property issues against the defendants to vacate the land within 3 months from the date of notification of this judgment.
  • An order of permanent injunction issues restraining the defendants, their agents and any other person claiming under them from dealing with the suit property.
  • General damages of UGX 60,000,000 is awarded to the estate of the late John Wycliffe Kazzora.
  • Interest of 20% is payable per annum against the award of damages, from the date of delivery of this judgment till payment is effected in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Trespass to Land — Elements of the Tort — Unlawful Entry and Interference with Lawful Possession
Trespass to land occurs when a person makes unauthorized entry upon land and thereby interferes or pretends to interfere with another person's lawful possession of that land. The tort is committed not against the land but against the person who is in actual or constructive possession of the land.
Registered Title — Conclusiveness of Certificate of Title under Registration of Titles Act s.59
A certificate of title is conclusive evidence of all particulars and endorsements appearing therein and that the person named therein as proprietor is possessed of the estate or interest described. It is conclusive proof of ownership. In the absence of any other person having lawful possession, a person holding a certificate of title to land has sufficient legal possession to support an action of trespass on land.
Bonafide Occupancy — Definition and Requirements under Land Act s.29(2)
A bonafide occupant is a person who before the coming into force of the Constitution had occupied and utilized or developed the land unchallenged by the registered owner or agent of the registered owner for twelve years or more. Without consent of the legal owner, a squatter cannot acquire protectable interest under section 29(2) of the Land Act.
Licence by Invitation — Nature and Non-Transferability of Licensee's Rights
A licensee by invitation is one who is expressly or impliedly permitted to enter another's premises to transact business with the owner or occupant or to perform an act benefiting the owner or occupant. A licensee is simply authorized to do a particular act or series of acts upon another's land without possessing any estate therein. The principle is founded on personal confidence and is generally not assignable or transferable. No proprietary interest passes to the licensee and the licence is revocable at will by the property owner. A licensee cannot pass on any valid interest to his family.
General Damages — Principles of Assessment in Trespass Cases
Damages are the direct and probable consequence of the act complained of. General damages are in the discretion of court and are always what the law will presume to be the natural consequence of the defendant's act or omission. The object is to give the plaintiff compensation for the damage, loss or injury suffered. In determining quantum, courts are guided by the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience that the party was put through, and the nature and extent of the breach.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (17)

  • George William Kakooza v Attorney General [2010] HCB 1
  • Sebutinde v Cooperative Bank Ltd [1982] HCB 130
  • Oketcho v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 0069 of 2004)
  • Justine DMN Luttaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Justine DMN Luttaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Opio Laloba v Okema Jakeo Akech (Civil Suit No. 20 of 2004)
  • Xai Nash Mine Limited v BAS Highstone Ltd (Civil Suit No. 139 of 2012)
  • George Kasedde Mukasa v Emmanuel Wabende and Others (Civil Suit No. 459 of 1998)
  • Misc. No. 22 of 2015 Ibrahim Muhamod & Four Ors versus Mukamba Anastaancia & Tetta Wilfred
  • Wuta-Ofei v Danquah [1961] 5 All ER 596
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Davinchi (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Waisisi Gabriel v Edea Ltd and George Ragii Kannoi (Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2010)
  • Kampala District Land Board and George Mitala v Venansio Bamweyana (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
  • Assir (U) v Midia Asphault & Haulage and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 1297 of 1999)
  • Fredrick Nsibuga v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1999)
  • Otyome v Attorney General (1979) HCB 267
  • Roko Construction Co Ltd v Uganda Co-operative Transport Union (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 32 of 1997)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gwendoline_Kainembabazi_and_4_Others_v_Namusisi_and_Another_(Civil_Suit_No._843_of_2021)_[2022]_UGHCLD_61_(5_May_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.