Wakilii

Jeppe Scherfig v Lisa Care Association Limited and Another [2026] UGHCLD 50

High Court · 2026 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for vacant possession, special and general damages, with a counterclaim for specific performance of an alleged undertaking to donate or sell land
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff; defendants declared trespassers with an option for the 2nd defendant to purchase at market value failing which they must vacate within six months; counterclaim dismissed

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 a purchaser of a sub-tenancy from a Kibanja holder acquires an enforceable equitable interest, and that occupants who entered by the owner's permission are estopped under the Evidence Act from denying his interest. The defendants' claim that the money was a donation failed because, absent transfer, the essentials of a valid gift were not established and no written undertaking existed. The defendants were bare licensees who became trespassers when the licence was revoked. Special damages of UGX 80,000,000 were refused for want of strict proof; general damages of UGX 7,000,000 were awarded against the second defendant. The counterclaim was dismissed and each party bore its own costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff; defendants declared trespassers with an option for the 2nd defendant to purchase at market value failing which they must vacate within six months; counterclaim dismissed

Facts

In October 2004 the plaintiff, a Danish national, paid for and acquired a sub-tenancy in two Bibanja comprised in Kyadondo Block 212, Plots 131 and 132 at Kyebando, purchasing from Jamil Kakombe, a tenant by occupancy. The second defendant, a Danish charity worker associated with the first defendant's shelter for persons with disabilities, had identified the land and facilitated the purchase after appealing for support on Danish television. The plaintiff permitted her to use the property for charitable purposes; she demolished the dilapidated structure and built nine rooms occupied by persons with disabilities and their families. The defendants asserted the money was a donation to the charity coupled with an undertaking to transfer the land at the original purchase price of DKK 22,000. In February 2016 the plaintiff offered to sell at DKK 40,000, which the second defendant rejected. The plaintiff issued a vacation notice dated 29 August 2017 expiring 1 October 2017, and attempted eviction with security personnel. No written undertaking or donation agreement was produced, and no valuation report or proof of the alleged UGX 80,000,000 sale offer was tendered. The court conducted a locus visit on 12 September 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff has any legal or equitable interest in the suit property.
  2. Whether the defendants are trespassers on the suit property.
  3. Whether the plaintiff's payment for the land amounted to a valid gift or donation to the defendants' charity, and whether the alleged undertaking to sell at the original purchase price is enforceable.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties, including special damages, general damages and costs.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff owns equitable interest in the suit property located in Kyadondo Block 212, Plot 131 and Plot 132, Kyebando, Kampala District.
  • A declaration that the Defendants and those claiming through them are trespassers on the Plaintiff's property.
  • The Parties are directed to obtain a Valuation Report of the suit land from the Chief Government Valuer within two months of the Judgment, to determine the prevailing market price.
  • The 2nd Defendant is directed to pay the purchase price for the suit land at the prevailing market price as determined by the Chief Government Valuer, within three months from the date the market price is determined and communicated.
  • In the alternative, if no Valuation Report is obtained within the stipulated period or the 2nd Defendant fails to purchase at the determined price, the Defendants shall vacate the suit property within six months to enable the vulnerable occupants find alternative accommodation.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 7,000,000 for trespass, payable by the 2nd Defendant within four months from the date of Judgment.
  • The counterclaim is dismissed.
  • The parties shall bear their own costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Mailo Land — Kibanja Tenancy — Sub-tenancy Created Under Land Act s.35(1) Confers Equitable Interest
A tenant by occupancy on mailo land may sublet the tenancy, and a purchaser of such a sub-tenancy acquires an equitable interest in the land which is enforceable in personam against competing claimants, particularly where no person with a registerable interest contests it.
Evidence — Estoppel — Licensee Estopped Under Evidence Act s.115 From Denying the Title of the Person Who Granted the Licence
A person who enters immovable property under the licence of the person in possession may not, during the continuance of the licence, deny that the licensor had title to that possession, and admissions in pleadings and evidence as to how the licensor acquired the property bind the party making them.
Land & Property — Gifts and Donations — Essentials of a Valid Gift — Absence of Transfer Defeats Claim of Donation
A valid gift requires absence of consideration, an identified donor and donee, a defined subject matter, and transfer and acceptance; where the alleged donor merely permitted use of the property and no transfer occurred and no written undertaking exists, no valid donation of land is established.
Property Law — Bare Licence — Creation by Conduct, Revocation on Reasonable Notice and Conversion of Licensee into Trespasser
A bare licence may be created orally or by conduct, confers no proprietary interest, and is revocable on reasonable notice; the licensee must be allowed a reasonable packing-up period, and only upon failing to leave within a reasonable time after revocation does the licensee become a trespasser.
Tort Law — Trespass to Land — Elements — Refusal to Vacate After Revocation of Permission
To establish trespass a claimant must prove that the disputed land belongs to him, that the defendant entered upon it, and that the entry or continued occupation was unlawful; trespass includes remaining on land after the permission to be there has been withdrawn or its purpose has ended.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Strictly Proved by Credible Evidence
A claim for special damages fails where the claimant merely pleads a figure without adducing credible evidence of the loss; a claimed lost sale must be proved by evidence of the transaction and the intended purchaser.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages for Trespass — Assessment by Reference to the Defendant's Conduct and Character of the Occupation
General damages for trespass are compensatory and assessed at large, with quantum calibrated to whether the trespass was wilful, negligent or inadvertent; a court may moderate the award where the occupation is non-profit charitable use and the claimant himself frustrated attempts at amicable settlement.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (21)

  • John Katarikawe v William Katwiremu [1977] HCB 211
  • Nakalyana Teopista and Others v Kaggwa Juma (Civil Suit No. 2443 of 2015)
  • Owembabazi Enid v Guarantee Trust Bank Limited (Civil Suit No. 63 of 2019)
  • Ojwang v Wilson Bagonza (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2002)
  • Lysaght Vs. Edwards (1876) 2 Ch D 499
  • Souza Figueiredo & Co. Ltd Vs Talbot George & Others (1959) EA 756
  • Male. H. Mabirizi & Anor Vs Owere Frenco & 3 others
  • F.D.K Zaabwe v Orient Bank and Others (Civil Suit No. 715 of 1999)
  • Sheikh Muhammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1987)
  • Joy Mukobe v Willy Wambuwu (Civil Appeal No. 0044 of 2005)
  • Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2003] 3 WLR 275
  • Okee Benjamine and Others v Otim Eronayo (Civil Appeal No. 0041 of 2017)
  • W.M Kyambadde Vs. Mpigi District Administration (1983) HCB 44
  • Bonham Carter Vs Hyde Park Hotel Ltd (1948) 64 TLR 177
  • Bendicto Musisi v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 622 of 1989)
  • Rosemary Nalwadda v Uganda AIDS Commission (Civil Suit No. 67 of 2011)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Wanume David Kitamire (Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2010)
  • Charles Acire v Myaana Engola (Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Adrabo v Madira (Civil Suit No. 0024 of 2013)
  • Takiya Kashwahira and Another v Kajungu Denis (Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Uganda Development Bank Vs Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] H.C.B 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jeppe Scherfig v Lisa Care Association Limited and Another [2026] UGHCLD 50 (26 February 2026)
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.