Wakilii

Kamya Steven Lugya v Lumu James and Others (Civil Suit No. 288 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 39 · 2026 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for land ownership, trespass, and injunction; matter proceeded ex parte after defendants failed to file defence despite proper service
Decision
Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants declared trespassers. Permanent injunction granted. Defendants given one year to compensate plaintiff at market value (to be assessed by government valuer) or face eviction without further court reference.

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 the plaintiff lawfully inherited land from his deceased father who distributed it among his children during his lifetime with customary confirmation. The defendants, siblings who had received and sold their own shares, unlawfully trespassed by removing boundary marks, demolishing developments, and constructing structures on the plaintiff's portion without consent. The plaintiff proved all three elements of trespass to land. Judgment for plaintiff with declarations of ownership and trespass, permanent injunction, and alternative remedy of compensation at market value or eviction if payment not made within one year.

Outcome

Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants declared trespassers. Permanent injunction granted. Defendants given one year to compensate plaintiff at market value (to be assessed by government valuer) or face eviction without further court reference.

Facts

The plaintiff inherited land at Kibwa, Nabweru North, Wakiso District from his late father Besweri Kibuuka, who distributed his land among all his children during his lifetime with clan confirmation. Clear boundary marks were planted and each beneficiary took possession. The plaintiff was allocated a portion between his late mother and John Kityo, which he developed with permanent structures and gardens for a refreshment business. The defendants (plaintiff's siblings) had received and disposed of their own shares. Recently, the defendants trespassed on a portion of the plaintiff's land measuring 120ft by 56ft by 121ft by 64ft, removed boundary marks, demolished the plaintiff's developments, denied him access, and constructed structures without his consent. Despite the plaintiff's complaints to local authorities and police, the trespass continued. The defendants were properly served with summons but failed to file a defence, and the matter proceeded ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff is the rightful owner of the suit land?
  2. Whether the Defendants are trespassers on the suit land?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Declaration that the Plaintiff is the rightful owner of the land located at Kibwa, Nabweru North Cell, Nabweru North Ward, Nansana Division in Wakiso District.
  • Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to unequivocal quiet enjoyment of the suit land.
  • Declaration that the Defendants are trespassers on the land.
  • Declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled as of right to vacant possession of the suit land and consequently an eviction order.
  • In the alternative to immediate eviction, the Defendants occupying the suit land are granted the option to regularize their occupation by compensating the Plaintiff by paying the current market value of the respective portions unlawfully occupied.
  • The Government valuer shall assess the current market value of the portion of land occupied by each Defendant and file a report in Court within two (02) months from the date of this Judgment.
  • Each Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the assessed market value of the portion of land occupied by him or her within one (1) year from the date of the valuation report.
  • Any expenses incurred in the valuation exercise shall, in the first instance, be borne by the Plaintiff and thereafter be reimbursed by each Defendant in equal proportion together with the assessed market value.
  • In case of default of payment by any of the Defendants within the stipulated period, an eviction order shall issue against the defaulting person without further reference to Court. Any continued occupation thereafter shall amount to contempt of Court.
  • A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, or any persons claiming through them from entering upon, occupying, constructing on, or in any manner interfering with the Plaintiff's land.
  • A copy of this order be served upon the Local Council Chairman of land Kibwa to ensure full compliance and enforcement within his jurisdiction.
  • General damages of UGX 20,000,000.
  • Punitive damages of UGX 10,000,000.
  • Costs of the suit.
  • Interest on general and punitive damages at 10% and on costs at 6% from the date of Judgment until payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Land Law — Customary Land Distribution — Distribution by Parent During Lifetime
Where a parent lawfully distributes his land among his children during his lifetime with clan confirmation and clear boundary demarcation, each child acquires a valid interest in the portion allocated to him or her, even in the absence of formal title documents.
Land Law — Proof of Ownership — Derivation of Title
To claim an interest in land, a person must show that he or she acquired an interest or title from someone who previously had an interest or title thereon.
Trespass to Land — Elements
The elements of trespass to land are: (i) proof that the disputed land belonged to the plaintiff, (ii) that the defendant entered upon it, and (iii) that the entry was unlawful in that it was without permission or claim of right.
Trespass to Land — Actionable Per Se
Trespass to land is actionable per se; there is no need for the plaintiff to prove that he or she has sustained actual damage.
Ex Parte Proceedings — Effect of Failure to File Defence
Where a defendant is properly served with summons but fails to file a defence within the prescribed time, the legal effect under Order 9 rules 10 and 11(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules is that the suit may proceed ex parte. By failing to file a defence, the defendant forfeits the right to contest the plaintiff's pleadings, adduce evidence, or cross-examine witnesses, and under Order 8 rule 3, every allegation of fact in the plaint not denied specifically or by necessary implication shall be taken to be admitted.
Remedies — Eviction — Alternative Remedy of Compensation
Where trespass to land is proved and the trespasser has constructed permanent structures on the plaintiff's land, the court may, in exercise of its inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and in the interests of justice, grant an alternative remedy to immediate eviction by ordering the trespasser to compensate the plaintiff at current market value or vacate within a specified period, failing which an eviction order shall issue automatically without further reference to court.
Damages — Punitive Damages — Willful and Malicious Trespass
Where a defendant deliberately trespasses on a plaintiff's land, removes boundary marks, demolishes developments, constructs structures without consent, and remains uncooperative and defiant despite repeated complaints and court involvement, such willful, malicious, and high-handed conduct justifies an award of punitive (exemplary) damages both to punish the defendant and to deter similar unlawful acts in the future.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (19)

  • Eladam Enterprises Ltd v Sas (U) Ltd and 2 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2005)
  • Bongole Geoffrey and Others v Agnes Nakiwala (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2015)
  • Fernandes v Noroniha [1969] EA 506
  • De Souza v Uganda [1967] EA 784
  • Yeseri Waibi v. Edisa Byandala [1982] I1CB 28
  • Nsibambi v Nankya [1980] HCB 81
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Dr. Vincent Karuhanga T/A Friends Polyclinic Vs National Insurance Corporation and Uganda Revenue Authority [2008] HCB 151
  • Lancaster v Blackwell Colliery Co Ltd (1918) WC Rep 345
  • Sebuliba Vs Cooperative Bank Ltd [1982] HCB 130
  • Ojwang v Wilson Bagonza (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2002)
  • Justine E.M.N. Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Co Ltd [2009] UGCA 30
  • Justine E.M.N. Lutaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • F.D.K Zaabwe v Orient Bank and 5 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 715 of 1999)
  • Sheikh Muhammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 4 of 1987)
  • Omito Luka and Others v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 73 of 2004)
  • Charles Acire v Myaana Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Ahmed El Termewy v Hassan Awdi and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 95 of 2012)
  • Uganda Development Bank Vs Muganga Construction Co. Ltd (1981) H.C.B 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kamya Steven Lugya v Lumu James and Others (Civil Suit No. 288 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 39 (22 January 2026)
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.