Wakilii

Kang Kiju and Another v Sunita Treacher and Another (Civil Suit No. 466 of 2018)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 327 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for trespass and damages arising from alleged encroachment and excavation on plaintiffs' land
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiffs with damages and costs awarded against the 1st defendant. Suit abated against the 2nd defendant owing to his death in October 2023.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 1st defendant trespassed on the plaintiffs' land through her agent, the late Bruce Mazinga, during stone quarrying activities that encroached on and weakened the plaintiffs' land. The court applied the principle of vicarious liability, finding that an agent-principal relationship existed between the 1st defendant and Bruce Mazinga. The plaintiffs proved exclusive possession of the suit land and unlawful entry by the defendant. General damages of UGX 80,000,000 were awarded to the plaintiffs for trespass and inconvenience.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiffs with damages and costs awarded against the 1st defendant. Suit abated against the 2nd defendant owing to his death in October 2023.

Facts

The plaintiffs were joint registered proprietors of land comprised in LRV 4429 Folio 9 Plot 212 and LRV 4409 Folio 18 Plot 213, Block 272 Kyadondo at Mutungo. The 1st defendant owned neighboring land comprised in Kyadondo Block 272 Plot 512, which she used for stone quarrying. The plaintiffs alleged that during stone quarrying activities, the defendants encroached on the plaintiffs' land and excavated marram and rocks, deforming the landscape and obstructing access. The plaintiffs valued the excavated materials at UGX 500,000,000. The 1st defendant denied liability, claiming she only authorized extraction from her own land and that the 2nd defendant was an independent contractor, not her agent. The 2nd defendant died in October 2023, and the suit abated against him. A locus visit confirmed that stone quarrying had occurred and that the defendant's land had been leveled.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiffs' suit discloses a cause of action against the 1st and 2nd defendants.
  2. Whether the defendants' actions amount to trespass on the plaintiffs' land.
  3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • The 1st defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs a sum of UGX 80,000,000 as general damages.
  • The 1st defendant shall pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Trespass to Land — Elements — Proof of Ownership, Entry, and Unlawfulness
To succeed in an action for trespass to land, a plaintiff must prove that the disputed land belonged to the plaintiff, that the defendant entered upon the disputed land, and that the entry was unlawful or that the defendant had no claim of right or interest in the disputed land.
Trespass to Land — Nature of the Tort — Protection of Possessory Interests
Trespass to land is an unlawful interference with possession of property and is designed to protect possessory, not necessarily ownership, interests in land from unlawful interference. Only one whose right to possession has been violated may maintain an action for trespass.
Vicarious Liability — Agent-Principal Relationship — Liability for Agent's Acts
Where an agent-principal relationship exists, the principle of vicarious liability applies, and the principal may be held liable for the acts of the agent performed within the scope of the agent's authority. An agent is a person employed by a principal to do any act for that principal or to represent the principal in dealing with a third person, and the authority may be express or implied.
Contract of Service versus Contract for Services — Distinction — Control Test
A contract of service differs from a contract for services. In a contract of service, the employer enjoys the power of control over the work of the servant, and the servant is bound to obey the orders or instructions of the master. An independent contractor undertakes to produce the required result but is not under the order or control of the person for whom he executes the work. The element of control and supervision of work is a vastly important test in determining the nature of the relationship.
Possession — Possessory Title — Right to Exclude Others
Possession confers a possessory title upon a holder of land and a recognizable enforceable right to exclude all others except persons with a better title. Possession of land is in itself a good title against anyone who cannot show a prior and therefore better right to possession. Possessory title is not based on a documentary title but on the exclusive occupation of the land for a period of time.
Death of Party — Abatement — Survival of Suit Against Remaining Defendants
Where there are more than one defendant and one dies, and where the cause of action survives or continues against the surviving defendant, the court shall make an entry on record and the suit shall proceed at the instance of or against the surviving defendant. Where defendants are sued jointly and one dies, the suit survives against the remaining defendant.
Expert Evidence — Competence — Registration Requirements
Expert evidence, though respected, is not binding on the court. The court must consider such evidence along with all other available evidence on record, and if there is proper and cogent basis for rejecting the expert's opinion, the court is entitled to do so. Questions may arise as to the competence of expert witnesses where statutory registration requirements exist.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (17)

  • Barugahare v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
  • Lutaaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Company Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Mutazindwa and 3 Others v Mushana (Civil Suit No. 78 of 2019)
  • Sheikh Muhammad Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1987)
  • Ojera v Labega (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2013)
  • In re H (minors) [1996] Ac 563 at 586
  • Adrabo Stanley v Madira Jimmy (High Court Civil Suit No. 24 of 2013)
  • Translink Ltd v Chemi & Cortex Industries Ltd and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 1000 of 2019)
  • Percy Vs Glasgow (1922) AC 299 at 306
  • Goldstar Insurance Company Ltd v Attorney General and 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 132 of 2010)
  • South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd Vs News Ltd (2000) 177 A.L.R 611
  • Phenehas Agaba v Swift Freight International Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 2000)
  • Professor Baryamureeba Venansius v St Augustine International University Ltd and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 295 of 2018)
  • [2017] UGHCCD 153
  • Ready Mixed Concrete Southeast Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497, [1968] 1 All ER 433
  • Kaggwa Micheal v Apire John (High Court Civil Appeal No. 126 of 2019)
  • Asher v. Whitlock (1865) LR 1 QB 1

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kang_Kiju_and_Another_v_Sunita_Treacher_and_Another_(Civil_Suit_No._466_of_2018)_[2025]_UGHCLD_327_(30_September_2025)
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.