Kakumilizi v Nankya (Civil Suit 715 of 2019)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The High Court held that the plaintiff, as registered proprietor of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 189 Plot 152, had valid title. The defendant's claim to a kibanja interest failed because she could not prove a valid gift inter vivos from her late husband's grandfather, her husband's place of abode was consistently shown as Mukono rather than the suit land location, and she had never paid busulu or identified the correct landlord. The defendant was declared a trespasser. A permanent injunction was granted but no damages were awarded given the defendant's circumstances as a retired widow.

Outcome

Plaintiff's suit succeeded; defendant's counterclaim dismissed; permanent injunction issued against defendant

Facts

The plaintiff purchased land comprised in Kyadondo Block 189 Plot 152 measuring 3 acres at Seeta, Nangabo, Wakiso District from Hajji Abubaker Sebalamu Ganya in 2001, after all squatters including the Sekaggo family were compensated. The plaintiff was originally known as Patrick Katabula Kubiriza and changed his name to Sunday Allan Kakumilizi in 2015. In August 2016, the defendant occupied a small house on the suit land claiming a kibanja interest inherited through her late husband Kasirye Sendagire from his grandfather William Sekaggo. The defendant constructed a pit latrine and destroyed crops. The defendant claimed her late husband received the land as a gift from his father Edward Herbert Lutwama Mbogga, who had inherited it from William Sekaggo. However, documentary evidence including the will of Edward Lutwama Mbogga, letters of administration, and UPDF records consistently showed the defendant's husband resided in Mukono, not at the suit land location. The defendant admitted she never paid busulu and did not know who the correct landlord was.

Issues

1. Whether the Defendant is a trespasser to the suit land.
2. Whether the parties are entitled to any remedies sought.

Orders

• A declaration that the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the suit land.
• A declaration that the defendant is a trespasser.
• A permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her agents, assignees, legal representatives or transferees from any further trespass and/or claim on the suit land.
• No punitive damages awarded.
• No general damages awarded.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Land Act Cap 227 s.3(4)(b)
• Land Act Cap 227 s.29(1)(b)
• Land (Amendment) Act 2010 s.3(b)

Cases cited (11)

• Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
• Lutaaya v Starling Civil Engineering Co (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
• Katarikawe v Katwiremu [1977] HCB 210
• Ojwang v Bagonza (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2002)
• Kampala District Land Board v Babweyaka (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
• Kampala District Land Board v National Housing & Construction Corporation (Court of Appeal No. 2 of 2004)
• Registered Trustees of Kampala Archdiocese v Nabitete Nnume Mixed Co-operative Farm Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 1559 of 2000)
• Mukobe v Wambuwu (High Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2005)
• Acire v Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
• Boschcon Civil & Electrical Construction Co (U) Ltd v Salini Construttiri Spa (High Court Civil Suit No. 151 of 2008)
• Obongo v Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] EA 91

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Kisitu v Kavuma & Another (Civil Suit 108 of 2023)

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