Wakilii

Kakembo v Roko Construction Limited (Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2005)

Court of Appeal · [2014] UGCA 31 · 2014 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court judgment awarding general damages for trespass and damage to land
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs; trial court's award of UGX 5,000,000 general damages upheld

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 9 (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 9 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 9 citing cases on record, 5 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

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's award of UGX 5,000,000 in general damages for trespass and damage to land caused by murram excavation. The court held that the appellant's claim for compensation for loss of value was misconceived, as the true cause of action was trespass and damage to land for which general damages, not loss-of-value compensation, was the appropriate remedy. The appellant failed to prove that the land lost 70% of its value, particularly as only about 0.67% of the total area was excavated. The court affirmed rejection of the expert valuation report where the valuer conceded he was unqualified to assess restoration costs. Enhancement of damages was not a ground of appeal.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; trial court's award of UGX 5,000,000 general damages upheld

Facts

The appellant, resident in the United States, is the registered proprietor of mailo land in Kyagwe Block 111 Plot 496, measuring approximately 60.371 hectares. In 1984 he appointed his brother as his attorney under a general power of attorney. In 1999, with the attorney's consent, the respondent excavated murram from the land, creating a pit of approximately 0.4 hectares (about one acre). The appellant, unaware of the activities, confronted the respondent on his return to Uganda and demanded restoration. The respondent refilled the pit but the appellant was dissatisfied with the manner of refilling and sued in the High Court claiming compensation for loss of value estimated at UGX 45,000,000, contending the land lost 70% of its value. His expert valuer conceded he was not qualified to assess restoration costs. The trial judge rejected the valuation report, found the respondent liable for damage to the land, and awarded UGX 5,000,000 as general damages. The appellant appealed the quantum.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred in holding that the appellant failed to prove his inability to use the land following the excavation of murram.
  2. Whether the trial judge was justified in rejecting the appellant's expert valuation evidence.
  3. Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation for loss of value of the land rather than general damages for trespass.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Trespass to Land — Damage to Land — Appropriate Remedy is General Damages Not Compensation for Loss of Value
Where a claim arises from unlawful excavation and damage to land, the cause of action is trespass and the appropriate remedy is general damages for the damage caused, not compensation for loss of the land's value.
Expert Evidence — Rejection of Opinion — Valuer Conceding Lack of Qualification
A court is not bound to accept expert opinion evidence and may reject it for good reason, particularly where the expert concedes he is unqualified to assess the matters in issue and his findings do not match his own conclusions.
Proof of Loss — Restoration Cost — Failure to Prove Loss of Value
A claimant seeking damages for damaged land should adduce evidence of the cost of restoring the land to its former state; a claim for loss of value must be proved by cogent evidence and cannot rest on conjecture, especially where only a small fraction of the land area is affected.
Pleadings — Cause of Action — Duty to Specify Basis of Claim
While the law need not be pleaded, it is good practice to specify the principle of common law or statute on which an action is based; the remedies available flow from the cause of action pleaded, and a party cannot adduce evidence to prove facts not pleaded.
Environmental Restoration Orders — Liability to Restore Land under National Environment Act
A person who has harmed the environment through excavation remains liable to restore the land under sections 67 and 71 of the National Environment Act, whether by an environmental restoration order from NEMA or a court order, and that obligation subsists independently of a damages claim.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Begumisa and Others v Tibebaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Ugachick Poultry Breeders Ltd v Tadjinkara t/a S.T Enterprises Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1997)
  • Management Training and Advisory Centre Vs Patrick Kakuku Ikanza (1986) 1 HCB 43

Cases citing this judgment (9)

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.

Kakembo v Roko Construction Limited (Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2005) [2014] UGCA 31 (4 April 2014)
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.