Wakilii

Jeppe Scherfig v Lisa Care Association Limited and Another (CIVIL SUIT NO. 126 OF 2018)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 50 · 2026 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for eviction and damages arising from alleged trespass on land held under equitable interest
Decision
Plaintiff's claim for eviction allowed with option for 2nd Defendant to purchase at market value; general damages awarded; counter claim dismissed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 acquired equitable interest as a subtenant in the suit property under a valid subtenancy agreement from a lawful tenant by occupancy. The defendants, who entered the property as licensees under a bare licence, became trespassers when they refused to vacate after the plaintiff revoked the licence and gave notice. The second defendant was given the option to purchase the property at market value as determined by the Chief Government Valuer, failing which the defendants must vacate within six months.

Outcome

Plaintiff's claim for eviction allowed with option for 2nd Defendant to purchase at market value; general damages awarded; counter claim dismissed

Facts

In 2004, the plaintiff purchased equitable interest in land comprised in Kyadondo Block 212, Plots 131 and 132 at Kyebando from a lawful tenant by occupancy. The same year, the plaintiff met the 2nd defendant who expressed interest in using the property for charitable work accommodating persons with disabilities. The plaintiff licensed the 2nd defendant to use the property. The 2nd defendant, working with the 1st defendant (a charitable organization), constructed structures on the land to house vulnerable persons with disabilities. The defendants claimed the plaintiff had donated the property or promised to sell it at the original purchase price of DKK 22,000. In 2016, the plaintiff offered to sell the property to the 2nd defendant at DKK 40,000, which she refused. The plaintiff issued a vacation notice in August 2017 requiring the defendants to vacate by October 2017. The defendants refused to vacate, claiming the plaintiff had made an undertaking to donate or sell at the original purchase price. The plaintiff instituted this suit seeking eviction, damages, and costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff has any legal interest in the suit property?
  2. Whether the Defendants are trespassers on the suit property?
  3. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff.
  • Declaration that the Plaintiff owns equitable interest in the suit property located in Kyadondo Block 212, Plot 131 and Plot 132, Kyebando, Kampala District.
  • Declaration that the Defendants and those claiming through them are trespassers on the Plaintiff's property.
  • Parties directed to obtain a Valuation Report from the Chief Government Valuer within two months of the Judgment to determine the prevailing market price.
  • The 2nd Defendant 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 when the market price is communicated.
  • In the alternative, if the Parties do not obtain a Valuation Report within the stipulated period or the 2nd Defendant cannot purchase the Plaintiff's interest at the determined price and within the time set, the Defendants shall vacate the suit property within six months.
  • The Plaintiff awarded general damages of UGX 7,000,000 for trespass payable by the 2nd Defendant within four months from the date of Judgment.
  • Each party to bear their own costs of the suit.
  • Counter claim dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Equitable Interest — Acquisition from Tenant by Occupancy — Validity of Subtenancy Agreement
A subtenant who acquires equitable interest in land from a lawful tenant by occupancy under a valid subtenancy agreement holds enforceable equitable interest in that land, and in the absence of challenge from holders of legal interests, such equitable interest is entitled to protection.
Mailo Land — Dual Legal Interests — Tenant by Occupancy Rights
The legal system for Mailo land ownership recognizes the existence of dual legal interests on the same piece of land: a title interest held by the registered owner and a lawful or bona fide occupant interest held by tenants. A tenant by occupancy has the right under Land Act s.35(1) to sublet his interests in land with the consent of the landowner.
Estoppel — Tenant Estopped from Denying Landlord's Title
Under Evidence Act s.115, no tenant of immovable property shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to that immovable property. A licensee who occupies land with the permission of a subtenant and makes admissions as to the subtenant's interest in the land is estopped from subsequently denying that interest.
Gifts and Donations — Essential Elements — Requirement of Transfer
The essential conditions of a valid gift include the absence of consideration, the donor and the donee, the subject matter, and transfer and acceptance. In the absence of proof of transfer of property through a written undertaking or other evidence, a valid donation cannot be established even where other elements may be present.
Bare Licence — Nature and Revocation — Reasonable Notice Period
A bare licence is the giving of personal permission by the landowner for the licensee to enter and remain on land without providing consideration. A bare licence may be revoked on reasonable notice, and the licensee must leave within a reasonable time after revocation, failing which the licensee becomes a trespasser. What constitutes reasonable notice depends on the circumstances, including the period the licensee has been using the property and the purpose for which it was used.
Trespass to Land — Licensee Becoming Trespasser — Refusal to Leave After Revocation
Trespass to land consists not only in making an unauthorized entry upon private property of another, but also in refusing to leave after permission to remain has been withdrawn or after the purpose for which permission to enter was given has ended. A licensee who refuses to vacate land after the licence has been revoked and reasonable notice given becomes a trespasser from the date the notice period expires.
General Damages for Trespass — Assessment — Conduct of Defendant
General damages for trespass should be compensatory and restore some satisfaction to the injured plaintiff. The conduct or action of the defendant is key to the amount of general damages awarded. If the trespass was willful, the damages are greater; if accidental or inadvertent, the damages are lower; and if the result of negligence or indifference, the damages are in-between. The court may consider the nature of the defendant's activities and whether the plaintiff frustrated attempts at amicable resolution.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (21)

  • John Katarikawe v William Katwiremu [1977] HCB 211
  • Ojwang v Wilson Bagonza (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2002)
  • Lysaght v Edwards (1876) 2 Ch D 499
  • Nakalyana Teopista and 4 Others v Kaggwa Juma (High Court Civil Suit No. 2443 of 2015)
  • Owembabazi Enid v Guarantee Trust Bank Limited (Civil Suit No. 63 of 2019)
  • Souza Figueiredo & Co. Ltd v Talbot George and Others (1959) EA 756
  • Male. H. Mabirizi & Anor Vs Owere Frenco & 3 others
  • F.D.K Zaabwe v Orient Bank and 5 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 715 of 1999) [2002] UGHC 40
  • Sheikh Muhammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 4 of 1987)
  • Joy Mukobe v Willy Wambuwu (High Court Civil Appeal No. 0044 of 2005)
  • Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2003] 3 WLR 275
  • Okee Benjamine and 2 Others v Otim Eronayo (High Court Civil Appeal No. 0041 of 2019) [2019] UGCLD 2
  • W.M Kyambadde v Mpigi District Administration (1983) HCB 44
  • Bonham Carter v Hyde Park Hotel Ltd (1948) 64 TLR 177
  • Bendicto Musisi v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 622 of 1989) [1996] 1 KALR 164
  • Rosemary Nalwadda v Uganda Aids Commission (High Court Civil Suit No. 67 of 2011)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Wanume David Kitamire (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2010)
  • Charles Acire v Myaana Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Adrabo v Madira (Civil Suit No. 0024 of 2013)
  • Takiya Kashwahira and Another v Kajungu Denis (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] HCB 35

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

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_(CIVIL_SUIT_NO._126_OF_2018)_[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.