Wakilii

Kakooza v Muhoozi & 2 Ors (Civil Suit No.371 of 2011)

High Court · [2019] UGHCLD 318 · 2019 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 and related orders
Decision
Defendants found to have trespassed on plaintiff's land; plaintiff awarded damages, injunction, and eviction order subject to fresh survey

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 defendants trespassed on the plaintiff's registered land by unlawfully entering, cutting trees, chasing away tenants, and settling on approximately 74 hectares without permission. The court awarded general damages of UGX 15 million, special damages of UGX 6.88 million, permanent injunction, and an eviction order subject to a fresh survey. Mesne profits were denied for lack of proof of actual profits received by the wrongful occupants.

Outcome

Defendants found to have trespassed on plaintiff's land; plaintiff awarded damages, injunction, and eviction order subject to fresh survey

Facts

The plaintiff, registered proprietor of land comprised in LRV 2548 Folio 10 Plot 16 measuring 301 hectares, alleged that in August 2009 the first defendant, owner of adjacent land Block 541 Plot 23, unlawfully encroached on approximately 200 acres of his land. The first defendant allegedly cut down the plaintiff's barbed wire fence, chased away tenants, settled about 100 head of cattle, cut and sold timber and trees, and allowed the second and third defendants to settle on the land. The plaintiff reported the matter to the RDC and Presidential Land Task Force, who recommended a survey to verify boundaries. When surveyors attempted to conduct the exercise, the defendant allegedly stopped and threatened them. A court-ordered survey by the District Surveyor found that approximately 74.326 hectares of the plaintiff's land was occupied by settlement and cultivation belonging to the first defendant. The defendants denied trespass, claiming their land was properly surveyed and that the plaintiff was attempting to encroach on their land. The defendants failed to appear at the hearing on 24 May 2018 despite proof of service, and the court proceeded ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendants trespassed on the Plaintiff's land?
  2. What remedies are available in the circumstance?

Orders

  • Judgment for the Plaintiff.
  • Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from trespassing on land comprised in LRV 2548, Folio 10 Plot 16.
  • Eviction order and demolition order, subject to a survey being done by the District Staff Surveyor of Kiboga in the presence of the Defendants, area land committee, civil leaders and stakeholders.
  • The boundaries as marked shall entitle the Plaintiff to vacant possession with full rights to evict anybody found in encroachment.
  • General damages awarded at UGX 15,000,000 (ten million shillings for lost cows and five million shillings for lost crops and trees).
  • Special damages awarded at UGX 6,880,000.
  • Mesne profits denied.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Trespass to Land — Elements of Proof — Burden on Plaintiff
To prove trespass to land, the 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.
Land Ownership — Proof by Certificate of Title
A certificate of title that is not challenged by the opposing party nor contradicted by evidence establishes ownership on the balance of probabilities.
Trespass to Land — Constitutional Protection of Property
Trespass to land occurs when a person makes an unauthorised entry upon another's land thereby interfering with another person's lawful possession, and Article 26 of the Constitution protects persons from deprivation of property.
General Damages — Assessment Principles
General damages should be compensatory in nature in that they should restore satisfaction, as far as money can do it, to the injured plaintiff, with consideration given to the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience suffered, and the nature and extent of the breach or injury.
Special Damages — Pleading and Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved, but strictly proving does not mean that proof must always be documentary; special damages can also be proved by direct evidence such as testimony of a person who received or paid or testimonies of experts conversant with the matters.
Mesne Profits — Elements for Award
For a claim of mesne profits to succeed, the defendant must be in wrongful possession of the suit property as against the plaintiff and be deriving profits from the property, and the plaintiff must prove the profits which the occupants actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (8)

  • Sebuliba v Co-operative Bank Ltd [1982] HCB 129
  • Sheik Muhammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 4 of 1987)
  • Justine E.M.N Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Takya Kushwahiri & Another v Kajonyu Denis (Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 35
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v A.S. Transporters (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
  • Busiro Coffee Farmers & Dealers Ltd v Tom Kayongo & 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 532 of 1992)
  • Kyalimpa v Nassozi (Civil Suit No. 794 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kakooza_Vs_Muhoozi_&_2_Ors_(Civil_Suit_No.371_of_2011)_[2019]_UGHCLD_318_(25_April_2019)
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.