Wakilii

Kamulegeya & 15 Others v National Forestry Authority (Civil Suit 300 of 2013)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 209 · 2023 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract and damages
Decision
Suit dismissed with liberty to plaintiffs to pursue refund of fees or action against third party

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

Held that without credible evidence of licences issued by the Defendant, the Plaintiffs cannot prove the existence of licensing agreements for tree planting on forest reserve land. Failure to produce licences under either the repealed Forests Act or the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act 2003 means the Plaintiffs cannot establish lawful authority to use the land. Suit dismissed; each party to bear own costs.

Outcome

Suit dismissed with liberty to plaintiffs to pursue refund of fees or action against third party

Facts

Sixteen plaintiffs claimed they were granted licences by the National Forestry Authority to plant trees for commercial purposes on forest reserve land in Mbale for 25 years, starting between 1995 and 2007. They alleged the Defendant unilaterally transferred the land to third parties who took possession and destroyed the plaintiffs' eucalyptus trees in March 2012. The Defendant denied the allegations and averred that it had offered the plaintiffs alternative land of equivalent size and free seedlings, and that no loss was occasioned. The Defendant also alleged the plaintiffs had breached licence conditions by planting crops in the forest reserve. Of the sixteen plaintiffs, only seven testified. None produced copies of licences, except one plaintiff who did not testify. Plaintiffs claimed they had paid licence fees but licences were never issued, as a presidential directive prohibited issuing licences in forest reserves. Evidence showed some plaintiffs began planting trees in the 1990s under the repealed Forests Act before the National Forestry Authority took over management.

Issues

  1. Whether or not there were licensing agreements existing between the Defendant and all the Plaintiffs.
  2. Whether any licensing agreements were void.
  3. What is the number and value of trees lost by each Plaintiff?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.
  • Plaintiffs at liberty to pursue the Defendant for a refund of licence renewal fees allegedly paid.
  • Plaintiffs at liberty to pursue legal action against the third party who allegedly destroyed their trees for compensation.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Proof of Licensing Agreement
A party claiming the existence of a licensing agreement bears the burden of proving it, and where no licence is produced in evidence, the existence of the licence cannot be established despite payment of fees or negotiations by the opposing party.
Evidence — Documentary Proof — Primary and Secondary Evidence
Under section 60 of the Evidence Act, the contents of a document may be proved by primary or secondary evidence. Where a party fails to produce either primary or secondary evidence of a licence alleged to exist, the court cannot find that the licence exists.
Administrative Law — Licences — Validity of Licences Issued Under Repealed Legislation
Section 96(3) of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act 2003 provides that licences issued under the repealed Forests Act remain in force and have effect as if granted under the 2003 Act. However, this saving provision cannot be applied where no licence issued under the repealed Act is produced in evidence.
Evidence — Number of Witnesses — Sufficiency
Under section 133 of the Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses is required to prove any fact. Where parties agree with the guidance of the court that only a sample of plaintiffs will testify because their evidence is the same, it would be unlawful and unjust for the same court to dismiss the case on the ground that not all plaintiffs testified.
Land & Property — Licences — Nature and Requirements of Licence
A licence is a mere permission which makes it lawful for the licensee to do what would otherwise be a trespass. It gives the right to lawfully use land but does not confer exclusive possession. A licence would be inferred if there is evidence of a fixed or periodic term agreed upon without conferment of exclusive possession.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (1)

  • Okot Patrick v Abodo Mary (Civil Appeal No. 046 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kamulegeya & 15 Others v National Forestry Authority (Civil Suit 300 of 2013) [2023] UGCommC 209 (10 October 2023)
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.