Wakilii

Jovan Latincic and Another v Wakiso District Land Board [2026] UGHCLD 253

High Court · 2026 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit challenging the cancellation of a leasehold title and seeking declarations and damages
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiffs; defendant ordered to refund UGX 32,550,000 with interest, pay UGX 20,000,000 general damages, and costs

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 the plaintiffs disclosed a cause of action after their leasehold title, granted by the defendant and later cancelled, was found to relate to government land unavailable for leasing. The defendant failed to prove that the plaintiffs, who had disclosed their non-citizen status, misrepresented themselves as customary tenants; a statutory body cannot rely on its own vetting failure. The allocation was illegal and null and void ab initio. The court found the plaintiffs' payments reached the defendant and ordered a refund of UGX 32,550,000 with 15% interest, UGX 20,000,000 general damages, and costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiffs; defendant ordered to refund UGX 32,550,000 with interest, pay UGX 20,000,000 general damages, and costs

Facts

In 2011 the plaintiffs, foreign nationals, sought land in Entebbe to build a school. Through a broker they were introduced to the Area Land Committee and Mr. Kasozi, the District Land Officer, who represented that the suit land (LRV 4407 Folio 3 Plot 7) belonged to the defendant. The plaintiffs applied for and were granted a five-year lease in August 2012, paid the required dues, and were registered on the title without notice of any defect. When they attempted to develop the land, UPDF Air Force officers prevented them, claiming the Government had acquired the land in 1998. The defendant later acknowledged the allocation was irregular and moved to cancel the title, which was subsequently cancelled. The plaintiffs' application form disclosed their non-citizen status and attached a passport copy. Minutes of the defendant's 8 June 2018 meeting confirmed the land had effectively been allocated to the Ministry of Defence and was unavailable for leasing.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit discloses a cause of action against the defendant.
  2. Whether the plaintiffs misrepresented to the defendant that they were customary tenants on the suit land.
  3. Whether the defendant illegally or fraudulently allocated the suit land to the plaintiffs.
  4. Whether the payments made by the plaintiffs were made to the defendant.
  5. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay Ug.shs. 32,550,000/= to the plaintiff being refund of monies received from the plaintiff.
  • The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Ug.shs. 20 million as general damages.
  • The defendant shall pay interest on the refund at the rate of 15% per annum from 30/11/2016 till payment in full.
  • The defendant shall pay interest on the general damages at court rate from date of judgment till payment in full.
  • The defendant shall pay costs of the suit to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — District Land Board — Powers of Allocation over Government Land
A District Land Board has power under section 60(1)(a) of the Land Act to hold and allocate only land not owned by any person or authority; a lease it grants over land already allocated to Government is beyond its powers, illegal, and null and void ab initio.
Land & Property — Misrepresentation — Standard of Proof and Duty of Vetting Authority
Misrepresentation must be strictly proved to a standard higher than a balance of probabilities but below beyond reasonable doubt, and a statutory body cannot rely on its own technical incompetence in vetting a public form to allege misrepresentation by applicants who honestly disclosed their foreign status.
Administrative Law — Statutory Duty of Due Diligence — Area Land Committee and District Land Board
The Area Land Committee under section 65(7) and the District Land Board under section 61(2)(d) of the Land Act bear the statutory duty to ascertain rights in land and conduct due diligence, and are expected to know that a non-citizen cannot hold land under customary tenure.
Damages & Quantum — Restitution and General Damages Following a Void Transaction
Where a transaction is null and void ab initio, monies paid under it are refundable as the payer received no value, and general damages are recoverable for the direct, natural or probable consequences of the wrongful act, including inconvenience, embarrassment and loss of business opportunity.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (5)

  • Auto Garage and Others v Motokov (No. 3) [1971] EA 514
  • Kebirungi v Road Trainers Ltd & 2 Others [2008] HCB 72
  • Sejjaka Nalima v Rebecca Musoke [1992] KALR 33
  • Makula International Ltd v His Highness Cardinal Nsubuga [1982] HCB 11
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jovan Latincic and Another v Wakiso District Land Board [2026] UGHCLD 253 (29 July 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.