Wakilii

Kailash Mine Limited v B4S Highstone Limited (Civil Suit No. 139 of 2012)

High Court · [2015] UGHCLD 55 · 2015 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 for trespass and conversion, proceeding ex parte after defendant failed to appear despite filing defence
Decision
Defendant ordered to vacate the suit land and pay mesne profits, exemplary damages, general damages, interest, and costs to the plaintiff.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (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 4 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations steady — 4 citing cases on record, 4 in the most recent three data years. 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 company was not insolvent and had locus standi to sue. Held that the defendant unlawfully entered the leasehold land and took possession of the stone crushing plant and machinery without authorisation from the lessor or lessee, thereby committing trespass. Held that the defendant converted the plaintiff's machinery to its own use and operated the business, denying the plaintiff its rightful use. The plaintiff was awarded an eviction order, mesne profits of UGX 39,480,000,000 calculated from January 2008 to judgment, general damages, and exemplary damages for the defendant's highhanded conduct.

Outcome

Defendant ordered to vacate the suit land and pay mesne profits, exemplary damages, general damages, interest, and costs to the plaintiff.

Facts

The plaintiff company acquired a 49-year leasehold interest in land in Kyaggwe Block 62 Plot 111 on 1 July 2006 from the registered owner Paulo Wavamunno and established a stone crushing business producing 350 tons of aggregate per day at UGX 40,000 per ton. In 2008, while one of the directors was on a business trip to South Sudan, the defendant company unlawfully entered the land, took possession of the plaintiff's stone crushing plant and machinery, changed the signage, and began operating the business. The plaintiff's director inquired with the lessor who denied authorising the takeover. The defendant filed a defence alleging the plaintiff was insolvent but did not appear at trial. The matter proceeded ex parte. Witnesses for the plaintiff, including the lessor and a customer, confirmed the defendant's unauthorised takeover and continued operation of the business.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff is insolvent and therefore with no locus to sue.
  2. Whether the defendant is a trespasser on the land comprised in Kyaggwe Block 62 Plot 111.
  3. Whether the defendant has converted to its use the stone crushing machinery and equipment on the said land.
  4. What remedies, if any, are available to the parties.

Orders

  • An order of eviction issued against the defendant to vacate the suit land comprised in Kyaggwe, East Buganda Block 62 Plot 111.
  • The plaintiff is awarded mesne profits of UGX 39,480,000,000 (Thirty Nine Billion and Four Hundred and Eighty Million Only).
  • The defendant shall pay UGX 44,000,000 as punitive and exemplary damages to the plaintiff.
  • The defendant shall pay UGX 55,000,000 as general damages to the plaintiff.
  • The amounts in (2), (3), and (4) shall attract an interest rate of 25% per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • The plaintiff is awarded costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Burden of Proof — Ex Parte Proceedings — Burden Remains with Plaintiff
Even though the suit proceeds ex parte, the burden of proof remains on the plaintiff to prove its case on the balance of probabilities.
Burden of Proof — Party Making Allegations
The burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue or question in dispute, and when that party adduces evidence sufficient to raise a presumption that what he asserts is true, the burden shifts to the opponent to adduce evidence to rebut the presumption.
Trespass to Land — Right to Sue — Person in Possession
The tort of trespass to land is committed not against the land but against the person who is in actual or constructive possession of the land. At common law, only a person in possession of the land has capacity to sue in trespass. A lessee in possession has the capacity to sue in respect of trespass to the leased land during the subsistence of the lease.
Trespass to Land — Elements — Unlawful Entry
Every unlawful entry by one person on land in possession of another is trespass for which an action lies even though no actual damage is done. A person trespasses upon land if he wrongfully sets foot on it, takes possession of it, expels the person in possession, or pulls down or destroys anything on it.
Mesne Profits — Definition and Proof
Mesne profits are those profits which the person in wrongful possession of the property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received from it, together with interest on those profits, but shall not include profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession. The burden of proving the profits received lies on the person who claims that it was received, and once the claimant prima facie establishes that profits were somewhere about the sum alleged, the burden shifts to the defendant.
Exemplary Damages — Grounds for Award
Exemplary or punitive damages are an exception to the rule that damages generally are to compensate the injured person. These are awardable to punish, deter, and express outrage of the court at the defendant's egregious, highhanded, malicious, vindictive, or oppressive conduct. They focus on the defendant's misconduct and not the injury or loss suffered by the plaintiff.
Interest on Damages — Commercial Rate
Interest is awarded at the discretion of court and must be exercised judiciously taking into account all circumstances of the case. Where the plaintiff is a company engaged in commercial activities, the rate of interest awarded should be on a commercial basis to cushion the awarded amount against inflation and depreciation of the currency.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (18)

  • Dr. Vincent Karuhanga t/a Friends Polyclinic v National Insurance Corporation & Uganda Revenue Authority (High Court Civil Suit No. 617 of 2002)
  • Takiya Kaswahili & Another v Kajungu Denis (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Yoswa Kityo v Eriya Kaddu [1982] HCB 58
  • Justine E.M.N. Lutaya vs. Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd
  • Sheikh Mohammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd [1992] KALR 126
  • George Kasedde Mukasa v Emmanuel Wambedde & 4 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 459 of 1998)
  • Paul Kalule v Losira Nonozi [1974] HCB 202
  • Fred Kamugira v National Housing & Construction Company Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 127 of 2008)
  • Elliott vs. Boynton [1924] I Ch. 236 (C.A)
  • Mugisha Kaganzi v Mwesigwa Phillip (High Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2007)
  • Fredrick J. K. Zaabwe v Orient Bank & Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2006)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Wanume David Kitamirike (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2010)
  • Annet Zimbiha v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 109 of 2011)
  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 13 of 1993)
  • Liska Ltd v DeAngelis [1969] EA 6
  • National Pharmacy Ltd v Kampala City Council [1979] HCB 256
  • Superior Construction & Engineering Ltd v Notay Engineering Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 24 of 1992)
  • Mark Extraction Enterprises Ltd v M/s Nalongo Orphanage (High Court Civil Suit No. 04 of 1996)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

Kailash Mine Limited v B4S Highstone Limited (Civil Suit No. 139 of 2012) [2015] UGHCLD 55 (30 October 2015)
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.