Wakilii

Khalif Mohamed Omar and Another v Ivan Sewankambo (Civil Suit 130 of 2022)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 115 · 2026 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for compensation arising from nuisance
Decision
Judgment for plaintiffs with general damages, interest, and costs awarded

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 defendant's construction activities without proper safety measures constituted private nuisance. The defendant failed to comply with building safety regulations, causing dust, noise, vibrations, and falling debris that substantially interfered with the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their adjacent office premises. The plaintiffs proved possessory interest as tenants, unreasonable interference, and substantial inconvenience. General damages of UGX 20,000,000 awarded for nuisance. Special damages denied for lack of proof. Interest awarded at 8% from judgment date. Costs to the plaintiffs.

Outcome

Judgment for plaintiffs with general damages, interest, and costs awarded

Facts

The 2nd plaintiff, a non-profit company providing services to Somali refugees, rented office premises adjacent to the defendant's land in Kisenyi, Kampala. In May 2021, the defendant commenced construction of a four-storey building without an approved building plan and without implementing safety measures. The construction proceeded day and night, generating excessive dust, noise, and vibrations. Falling debris damaged vehicles and furniture on the plaintiffs' premises. Despite a Ministry of Gender inspection report in July 2021 ordering the defendant to halt work until safety issues were addressed, construction continued. The plaintiffs closed their offices for eight months due to the unsafe conditions. The defendant obtained building plan approval only in July 2022 when the building was complete. The plaintiffs claimed they incurred additional expenses for alternative premises, transport, and continued rent payments during the closure period.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the defendant?
  2. Whether the defendant's actions amounted to nuisance?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant.
  • General damages of UGX 20,000,000 (Twenty Million Shillings Only) awarded to the plaintiffs for inconveniences and nuisance suffered.
  • Interest of 8% per annum on the award of damages from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Disclosure in Plaint
For a plaint to disclose a cause of action, it must show that the plaintiff had a right, that the right was violated or breached, and that the defendant is liable. The question of whether a plaint discloses a cause of action must be determined upon perusal of the plaint together with anything attached so as to form part of it.
Tort Law — Private Nuisance — Elements of Proof
In cases of private nuisance, the plaintiff must prove: (1) possessory interest in the land (ownership or right to possess); (2) that the defendant actually performed an act that interferes with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of the land; and (3) that the defendant's act caused an interference that is substantial and unreasonable, being something a reasonable person would not tolerate.
Tort Law — Private Nuisance — Possessory Interest — Tenants
An action for private nuisance may be brought by a person in actual possession of the land affected, whether as freeholder, tenant, or even as licensee with exclusive possession. A tenant has standing to bring an action for private nuisance affecting the leased premises.
Tort Law — Private Nuisance — Construction Activities — Safety Measures
A landowner has the right to develop his property, but must do so in a manner that does not make the life of his neighbours unbearable. Failure to comply with statutory building safety requirements, including provision of safety nets, barricades, and dust control measures, may constitute actionable nuisance where such failure causes substantial interference with neighbouring occupiers' use and enjoyment of their land.
Tort Law — Private Nuisance — Distinguished from Public Nuisance
Private nuisance affects a private right and causes special injury to a single person or determinate number of people, whereas public nuisance is concerned with interference affecting a sufficient number of the public. Where a claim alleges both interference with public rights (such as blocking a public road) and interference with the plaintiff's private enjoyment of land, the claim may be partially public and partially private nuisance. A private individual cannot bring a civil action for public nuisance without showing special damage beyond that suffered by the public generally.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Proof Requirements
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved. Strictly proving does not mean proof must always be documentary; special damages can be proved by direct evidence or expert testimony. However, where special damages are neither specifically pleaded nor proved at trial, there is no basis for granting them.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment for Nuisance
General damages for nuisance are awarded at the discretion of the court to compensate for inconvenience suffered. In assessing general damages, the court should be guided by the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience the plaintiff has been put through, and the nature and extent of the injury suffered. Where nuisance is proved through evidence of dust, noise, vibrations, and falling debris causing substantial interference, general damages are appropriately awarded for the inconvenience caused.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (17)

  • Hunter v Canary Wharf [1998] WLR 434
  • Auto Garage v Motokov No. 3 (1971) EA 519
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Owor v Hammerline Extractions Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 648 of 2016) [2023] UGHCCD 343
  • Newcastle-under-Lyme Corporation v Wolstanton Ltd [1947] Ch. 92
  • Gilingham Borough Council Vs Medway (Chatham) Dock Co, Ltd & Others (1991)
  • Watum Richard Wod Ongom & 2 Others v Florence Nabukenya & Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 66 of 2021)
  • Nsubuga v Kavuma [1973] HCB 307
  • Bahirirwe Getrude v Tukore David & 2 Others (Land Claim No. 32 of 2018)
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v A.S. Transporters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Robert Cuossens v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Luzinda v Ssekamatte & 3 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 366 of 2017)
  • Premchandra Shenoi & Another v Maximov Oleg Petrovich (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2003)
  • Iyamulemye David v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Khalif Mohamed Omar and Another v Ivan Sewankambo (Civil Suit 130 of 2022) [2026] UGHCCD 115 (16 March 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.