Hajati Mulagusi v Pade (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2010)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

Held that an occupant who has been on registered Mailo land since the 1970s with knowledge of successive owners qualifies as a bonafide occupant under Land Act s.29(2) and Constitution Articles 26 and 237(1), and cannot be termed a trespasser. A registered proprietor who attempts to compensate an occupant thereby recognizes the occupant's legal interest. Trespass actions constitute continuing torts and are not time barred. Appeal allowed.

Outcome

Eviction order and damages award set aside; Appellant's status as bonafide occupant recognized

Facts

The Respondent acquired Mailo title to land at Makerere Kikoni in 1986. The Appellant had occupied the land since 1977, having purchased Kibanja interest from Yunus Musoke for Shs.30,000. Musoke later became the Mailo owner before transferring to Kayizi in 1982, who then transferred to the Respondent. The Appellant paid property rates to Kampala City Council from 1977 to 1987 and was recognized as Kibanja owner. In 1988, the Respondent first wrote to the Appellant to quit the land and offered compensation of Shs.3,000,000, which the Appellant declined as insufficient. The Respondent kept quiet until 2003, then filed suit in 2004 in the Kampala Land Tribunal seeking eviction, a declaration of trespass, mesne profits, general damages, and alternatively an order compelling the Appellant to accept compensation. The Chief Magistrates Court found for the Respondent, declaring the Appellant a trespasser, ordering eviction and awarding damages of Shs.10,000,000.

Issues

1. Whether the Appellant is a trespasser on the suit land.
2. Whether the Appellant is a bonafide occupant entitled to protection under the Land Act.
3. Whether the Respondent's action was time barred under the Limitation Act.
4. Whether the learned Chief Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence on record.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• Costs of the appeal and in the lower court awarded to the Appellant.
• Decision of the Chief Magistrates Court holding the Appellant to be a trespasser set aside.
• Eviction order against the Appellant set aside.
• Award of damages of Shs.10,000,000/= set aside.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Land Act s.29(2)
• Land Act s.92(e)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 26
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 237(1)
• Limitation Act s.3(1)(a)

Cases cited (6)

• Justine Lutaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Company Limited (SCCA No. 11 of 2002)
• Busiro Coffee Farmers & Dealers Limited v Tom Kayongo & 2 Others (HCCS No. 532 of 1992)
• Kampala District Land Board & Another v National Housing and Construction Corporation (Supreme Court Appeal No. 2 of 2004)
• Abraham Kituma vs Uganda Telecommunication Corporation Limited (1994) II KARL 126
• UPTC v Abraham Lutaya (SCCA No. 36 of 1995)
• Guyal v Goyal [2009] 2 EA 143

Cases citing this judgment (9)

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.

• Veronica B. Tindyebwa and Another v Paulino Bwentungye Kavuma and Others (Civil Suit 129 of 2014)
• Shire Petroleum Company Limited and Another v Vivo Energy Uganda Limited (Civil Appeal No. 96 of 2018)
• Uganda v Kafeero (HCT-00-CR-SC 328 of 2019)
• Uganda v Jumba (HCT-00-CR-SC 62 of 2020)
• Uganda v Jumba (Criminal Session Case 62 of 2020)
• Uganda v Kimodera (HCT-00-CR-SC 513 of 2019)
• Uganda v Kimodera (Criminal Session Case 513 of 2019)
• Vivo Energy (U) Limited v Shire Petroleum Company Limited & 2 Ors (CIVIL SUIT No. 0008 OF 2016)
• River Oli Division Local Government v Sakaram (Civil Appeal No. 0018 of 2013)

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