Wakilii

Kaahwa v Attorney General (Civil Suit 29 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 106 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for fair and adequate compensation following compulsory land acquisition
Decision
Plaintiff awarded compensation of UGX 4,340,389,288 plus general damages of UGX 154,000,000 with interest at 18% per annum

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 High Court held that compensation for compulsory land acquisition must reflect market value based on what a willing seller would obtain from a willing purchaser. The Government's valuation using the comparable sales method failed to conduct proper market research or consider rental capacities in the area, rendering it unfair and inadequate. The court accepted the plaintiff's private valuation using the internationally recognised income approach, which considered actual lease income from similar properties in the vicinity, as establishing fair compensation of UGX 4,340,389,288 for 27 parcels totalling 39.301 acres acquired for the Tilenga oil project.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded compensation of UGX 4,340,389,288 plus general damages of UGX 154,000,000 with interest at 18% per annum

Facts

The Government of Uganda, through the Ministry of Energy & Mineral Development, granted petroleum production licences for the Tilenga Project in Hoima and Buliisa Districts, necessitating land acquisition. The project affected 27 parcels of land owned by the plaintiff totalling 39.301 acres. On 31 May 2022, the plaintiff granted consent for the defendant to access the land pending payment of fair and adequate compensation. The Chief Government Valuer assessed compensation at UGX 342,000,906 using the comparable sales method. The plaintiff rejected this as inadequate, noting he was leasing other land in the same area to ATC (U) at UGX 458,333 per month for 0.222 acres and to Total Energies at UGX 998,510 per acre per month. The plaintiff engaged private valuers who assessed the land at UGX 4,340,389,288 using the income approach methodology, taking into account rental capacities in the area.

Issues

  1. Whether the compensation offered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is fair and adequate.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Declaration that the compensation offered to the Plaintiff by Total Energies EP (U) on behalf of the Government for the compulsory acquisition of the 27 parcels of land is low, unfair and not adequate.
  • Order directing that the Plaintiff be compensated a total sum of UGX 4,340,389,288 for the 27 parcels of land measuring 39.301 acres.
  • General damages of UGX 154,000,000 awarded.
  • Interest of 18% per annum on both the decretal sum and general damages from the date of filing the suit and date of judgment till payment in full respectively.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Compulsory Acquisition — Fair and Adequate Compensation — Constitutional Requirement
Article 26(2)(b)(i) of the Constitution requires prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation prior to the taking of possession or acquisition of property compulsorily acquired, and this constitutional protection is justiciable.
Land Valuation — Market Value Principle — Willing Seller and Willing Purchaser
The market value of land for compensation purposes is the price at which a willing vendor would be expected to obtain from a willing purchaser, and compensation should not be less than the loss imposed by compulsory acquisition nor more, assessed on the basis of the value of the land to the owner including its intended use and potential.
Land Valuation Methodology — Income Approach vs Comparable Sales Method
Where land in an area is actively generating rental income and comparable properties demonstrate rental capacities, the income approach methodology is a suitable and internationally recognised valuation method, and a valuation using the comparable sales method that fails to consider rental capacities or provide evidence of actual comparable sales may be rejected as failing to reflect market value.
Valuation Reports — Disclosure Requirements — Assumptions and Methodology
A valuation report must disclose all significant assumptions made during the valuation process along with their rationale in accordance with International Valuation Standards, and must justify the figures arrived at by providing evidence of comparable properties or other basis for valuation.
Private Valuations — Right to Challenge Assessment Officer's Award
The constitutional right under Article 26 to challenge compulsory acquisition in court and the statutory right under section 13 of the Land Acquisition Act to challenge compensation awarded by an Assessment Officer necessarily contemplates the use of private valuers to counter Assessment Officer awards, and to outlaw private valuation would render citizens without remedy when aggrieved by Assessment Officer awards.
General Damages — Assessment for Delayed Compensation and Inconvenience
General damages may be awarded for inconvenience suffered where compensation has been unreasonably withheld following compulsory acquisition, including loss of investment and commercial opportunities and costs of obtaining independent valuation, but the quantum must compensate the plaintiff without unjustly enriching him.
Special Damages — Valuation Costs — Strict Proof Required
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, and a schedule of professional fees for valuation surveyors is not evidence that a claimed sum was actually charged or paid for valuation services where the valuer retains discretion to charge less and the customer has a right to negotiate.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (10)

  • Sheema Cooperative Ranching Society & 31 Others v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 103 of 2010)
  • Buran Chand Mary vs The Collector under the India Land Acquisition Act (1894) 1957 EACA 125
  • Attorney General v Etot Paul Peter & 8 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 144 of 2018)
  • Aya Investments (U) Ltd v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 2908 of 2023)
  • Bank of Africa (U) Ltd v Ssemaganda Mark & Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 131 of 2021)
  • W.M Kyambadde vs Mpigi District Administration [1984] HCB 44
  • Dharamshi vs Karsan [1974]1 EA 41
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • Stroms vs Hutchinson [1905] AC 515, UK HL 844
  • Waigloba (U) Ltd v Sai Beverages Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 16 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kaahwa v Attorney General (Civil Suit 29 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 106 (10 January 2025)
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.