Wakilii

Kaahwa v Chongquing International Construction Corporation Limited (CICO) (Civil Suit No. 42 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 187 · 2021 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for trespass to land, unjust enrichment, and related remedies. Defendant's written statement of defence struck out for non-compliance with procedural rules; matter proceeded under Order 9 rule 10 CPR.
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with declarations of ownership, trespass, permanent injunction, restitution, general damages, and costs with interest.

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 the plaintiff proved ownership of customary land at Bukumi Village through a sale agreement and supporting documentation. The defendant construction company unlawfully entered the land, established a burrow pit, and excavated murram, rock, and stones for road construction without the plaintiff's consent. The court awarded restitution of UGX 552,839,548 for the value of materials excavated, general damages of UGX 260,000,000, a permanent injunction, and costs. The defendant's written statement of defence had been struck out for procedural non-compliance.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with declarations of ownership, trespass, permanent injunction, restitution, general damages, and costs with interest.

Facts

The plaintiff purchased approximately 500 acres of customary land at Bukumi Village (formerly Nyamasoga A, later Itutwe K), Biiso Sub-county, Buliisa District in 2006 for UGX 30 million. The defendant construction company, engaged in building the Hoima-Butiaba-Wanseko Asphalt Road, entered the plaintiff's land without permission and established a burrow pit. The defendant excavated murram, rock, and stones from approximately 13.5 acres for road construction. The plaintiff raised a preliminary objection that the defendant's written statement of defence was not properly signed by the Registrar and sealed, which the court upheld. The defence was struck out and the defendant's counsel opted not to participate further. A registered surveyor valued the excavated materials at UGX 552,839,548 as of March 2021. The defendant continued excavating even during the pendency of the case and a temporary injunction order.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit property/land.
  2. Whether the defendant trespassed on the suit land.
  3. What remedies are available in the circumstances.

Orders

  • Declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land.
  • Declaration that the defendant is a trespasser.
  • Eviction order and permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, contractors, or workmen from further trespass on the suit land.
  • Restitution/compensation of UGX 552,839,548.
  • General damages of UGX 260,000,000.
  • Mesne profits not awarded.
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Restitution/compensation and general damages to carry interest of 12.5% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Customary Land Ownership — Proof of Title
Ownership of customary land may be proved by a sale agreement, supporting documentation from local government authorities, and evidence of continuous possession, particularly where such evidence is unchallenged.
Tort Law — Trespass to Land — Elements of Proof
To prove trespass to land, a plaintiff must establish that the disputed land belongs to him, that the defendant entered upon that land, and that the entry was unlawful in that it was made without permission or that the defendant had no claim, right, or interest in the land.
Civil Procedure — Written Statement of Defence — Formal Requirements
A written statement of defence that is not signed by the Registrar and sealed by the court violates Order 9 rule 1(i) of the Civil Procedure Rules and is liable to be struck out, with the matter proceeding under Order 9 rule 10.
Tort Law — Unjust Enrichment — Restitution for Extracted Materials
Where a defendant unlawfully extracts minerals or materials from a plaintiff's land for commercial purposes, the plaintiff is entitled to restitution measured by the value of the materials extracted, as determined by expert valuation evidence.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Sebuliba v Cooperative Bank Ltd (1982) HCB 129
  • Sheik Muhammed Waswa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1987)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kaahwa v Chongquing International Construction Corporation Limited (CICO) (Civil Suit No. 42 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 187 (26 May 2021)
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.