Kamulegeya v Zaribwende (Civil Suit No. 417 of 2006)

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

Held that a lessee who acquired a leasehold interest from the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board under the Expropriated Properties Act is not a trespasser while the lease subsists, but where the lessee fails to pay rent for 17 years despite knowing the identity of the lessor, the court may refuse relief against forfeiture under Judicature Act s.25, particularly where non-payment is prolonged and the lessee suffers no serious personal consequences from forfeiture. The plaintiff mailo owner was awarded vacant possession, general damages, and a permanent injunction.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded vacant possession; defendant's counterclaim for relief against forfeiture dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff was registered proprietor of mailo land (Block 29 plot 50) from which the defendant's leasehold interest (LRV 210 folio 23) was derived. The defendant acquired the leasehold from the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board in 1995 under the Expropriated Properties Act. The original 49-year lease commenced in 1946. Under applicable regulations, a 23-year unexpired term started running from the 1997 sale date, due to expire in 2020. The plaintiff formally registered her mailo interest in 2006 and notified the defendant in 2005 that she was the reversionary owner entitled to rent. The defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's interest and his rental obligation but failed to pay rent from 1997 onwards — a period of 17 years by the time of judgment. The plaintiff noted re-entry and sought vacant possession. The defendant counterclaimed for relief against forfeiture.

Issues

1. Whether the defendant's refusal to vacate the suit premises amounts to trespass to land.
2. Whether the defendant defaulted in payment of rent he owed to the plaintiff.
3. Whether the noting of re-entry is lawful.
4. Whether the defendant is entitled to relief against forfeiture and any other legal remedy.
5. What remedies are available.

Orders

• The defendant is ordered to vacate the property comprised in LRV 210 folio 23 known as plot 50 Block B, Namalinga, Bulemeezi with immediate effect.
• A permanent injunction is issued as against the defendant.
• General damages are awarded to the plaintiff in the sum of UGX 10,000,000 payable at 8% interest from the date hereof until payment in full.
• Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Registration of Titles Act s.101
• Registration of Titles Act s.102(a)
• Registration of Titles Act s.103(b)
• Registration of Titles Act s.114
• Expropriated Properties Act s.8
• Expropriated Properties (Repossession and Disposal) (No. 1) Regulations SI 87-8 Regulation 13
• Judicature Act s.25
• Judicature Act s.25(1)

Cases cited (3)

• Butagira v Namukasa (Supreme Court Appeal of 1992)
• Gill vs. Lewis (1956) 1 All ER 844
• Public Trustee vs. Westbrook & Another (1965) 3 All ER 398

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.

• Parul Kamalesh v Jinja District Land Board and Another (HCT-03-MC-CS 17 of 2023) followed

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