Kasenge v Kyeyune (Civil Suit 578 of 2015)
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
The court held that a defendant who purchased a kibanja interest from a bona fide occupant before the plaintiff's registration as proprietor of the mailo land is protected by section 35(8) of the Land Act. A change of ownership by registration does not affect the existing lawful interests of a bona fide occupant, and the new owner must respect that interest. The defendant was not a trespasser and the suit was dismissed.
Outcome
Suit dismissed; defendant's kibanja interest upheld
Facts
The plaintiff claimed ownership of land comprised in Busiro Block 383 Plot 2183, Kitende, measuring 4.699 hectares, having been registered as proprietor in August 2006. His predecessor in title, his late mother Enumeri Neggaggasa, was registered in August 2005. The defendant purchased a kibanja on the suit land on 16 June 2002 from Florence N. Lwanga for UGX 5,300,000. The vendor had herself purchased it from the late Ms. Mulumba, who had received it as a gift from her husband. After purchase, the defendant was introduced to the late Neggaggasa, the then registered proprietor, and paid busuulu and kanzu until her death. The defendant took possession by cultivating bananas and constructing a permanent structure. In 2015 the plaintiff brought a trespass complaint to police which was later withdrawn by the DPP. The plaintiff then filed this suit seeking a declaration of ownership, vacant possession, and a permanent injunction. The defendant asserted she was a lawful kibanja owner who had been in possession since 2002, before either the plaintiff or his mother were registered.
Issues
- Whether the Defendant is a trespasser on the suit land comprised in Busiro Block 383 Plot 2183, Land at Kitende.
- What remedies are available to the Parties.
Orders
- Suit dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the Defendant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Land Act s.29(5)
- Land Act s.35(8)
- Land Amendment Act No. 1 of 2010 s.35(8)
Cases cited (1)
- Justine E.N. Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.