Wakilii

Jjumba Mathias v Damanico Properties Limited and Others [2026] UGHCLD 62

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application by notice of motion for orders to conduct a boundary opening and verification exercise on land the subject of a pending civil suit
Decision
Application for boundary opening dismissed; issue left to be addressed within the pending main suit

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 dismissed an application for a boundary opening and verification exercise over a kibanja. The application was fundamentally defective because it failed to identify with specificity the suit property on which the alleged kibanja was situated, so essential particulars for the proposed exercise were lacking. While boundary opening by a licensed surveyor is important in ascertaining boundaries and location, a survey does not itself determine proprietary rights; it merely assists the Court in achieving clarity on physical boundaries. The Court must first know which boundaries are to be opened and which parties are entitled to participate. Where a substantive main suit is pending, boundary opening is more appropriately addressed within that suit.

Outcome

Application for boundary opening dismissed; issue left to be addressed within the pending main suit

Facts

The applicant claimed to be the lawful owner of a kibanja of approximately seven acres at Kawali Lweza Zone B, Mutungo Parish, Makindye Ssabagabo, Wakiso District, having purchased it from Tenywa Siraje in September 2008 and acquired an additional portion in October 2016. He alleged that his vendor had given out parts of the land to others without his knowledge, that from May 2019 another person asserted ownership and sold portions on, and that a subsequent purchaser was developing the land. His earlier suit, HCCS No. 364 of 2019, abated and he did not file a fresh suit. He learned of Civil Suit No. 1082 of 2023, a trespass claim over the same land, to which he is not a party, and said the defendants there had prevented him accessing the land. He therefore sought orders for a boundary opening and verification exercise and for the resulting report to be placed on record. The first respondent's director denied knowledge of the applicant or any kibanja agreement with him, and contended the applicant lacked locus, had not identified the plot on which his alleged kibanja lay, and was abusing court process. A main suit including pending compensation claims against UNRA remained undetermined.

Issues

  1. Whether a boundary opening and verification exercise should be ordered in respect of the kibanja alleged to be situate at Kawali Lweza Zone B, Mutungo Parish, Makindye Ssabagabo, Wakiso District.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Boundary Opening — Requirement of Specific Identification of the Suit Property
An application for a boundary opening and verification exercise is fundamentally defective where the applicant fails to identify with specificity the suit property on which the claimed interest is alleged to be situated, since the essential particulars required to define the proposed exercise are absent.
Land & Property — Boundary Opening — Survey Does Not Determine Proprietary Rights
A survey or boundary opening does not of itself determine proprietary rights in disputed land; it serves only to assist the court in attaining clarity as to the physical boundaries, location and extent of the land.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Applications — Boundary Opening Better Addressed Within the Pending Main Suit
Where a substantive main suit over the same land is pending, the question of boundary opening is more appropriately addressed within that suit, and the court must first be clear which boundaries are to be opened and which parties are entitled to participate before making such an order.
Civil Procedure — Parties — Joinder of Persons Against Whom Relief Is Effectively Sought
A party seeking an order affecting the interests of persons asserting competing claims to land should join those persons to the proceedings, since the court cannot conveniently make an order regulating rights against persons who are not before it.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Bamanya Andrew Mulindwa v Namuleme Josephine and Nabakooza Caroline (Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2018)
  • [2024] UGHC 587

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jjumba Mathias v Damanico Properties Limited and Others [2026] UGHCLD 62 (25 March 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.