Wakilii

Kiiza v Kabajungu (HCT – 01 – CV – LD – MA 0020 OF 2018)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 36 · 2018 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for vacant possession following purchase of land at execution sale in Civil Appeal No. 0052 of 2005
Decision
Vacant possession granted to the applicant; respondent ordered to vacate the land

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 granted vacant possession to the applicant who had purchased land at an execution sale for UGX 45,000,000 following Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2005. The respondent was ordered to vacate the land but the court declined to commit her to civil prison, holding that imprisonment would constitute double punishment given she had already lost the land.

Outcome

Vacant possession granted to the applicant; respondent ordered to vacate the land

Facts

The applicant purchased land with developments at Kyenjojo Town Council at an execution sale following Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2005, paying a total of UGX 45,000,000. Of this sum, part was paid to counsel for the judgment creditor and UGX 35,542,000 was deposited in court for the respondent on 22 November 2017. The judgment in Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2005, delivered on 28 January 2010 by Justice Rugadya Atwoki, had determined that the respondent had sold part of her Plots 15 and 17 to Akugizibwe Patrick. That judgment was never appealed. The court bailiffs executed the sale and the applicant was the highest bidder. Despite being duly notified of the execution process, the respondent refused to vacate the premises. The respondent was duly served with notice of this application but failed to attend court, and the application proceeded exparte.

Issues

  1. Whether an order of vacant possession should issue in favour of the applicant who purchased land at an execution sale.
  2. Whether the respondent should be committed to civil prison for obstructing possession of immovable property.

Orders

  • Application allowed with costs.
  • Order of vacant possession issued in favour of the applicant, Kiiza Laban, and against the respondent, Kabajungu Joweria, her agents and/or any person claiming under her authority from the land situate at Kyenjojo Town Council.
  • Application to commit the respondent to civil prison declined.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.
  • The sum of UGX 35,542,000 deposited in court to be handed over to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Execution — Vacant Possession — Rights of Execution Purchaser
A purchaser at an execution sale who has paid the purchase price and complied with the execution process is entitled to an order of vacant possession against the judgment debtor and persons claiming under the judgment debtor's authority.
Execution — Committal to Civil Prison — Double Punishment
Where a judgment debtor has already lost immovable property through execution proceedings, committing that person to civil prison for obstructing possession would constitute double punishment and should be declined.

Legislation cited (8)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiiza Vs Kabajungu (HCT – 01 – CV – LD – MA 0020 OF 2018) [2018] UGHCCD 36 (12 July 2018)
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.