Wakilii

Kisitu v Kavuma & Another (Civil Suit 108 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 1190 · 2024 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaration of ownership, eviction order, and damages
Decision
Plaintiff's trespass claim dismissed; defendants recognised as bonafide occupants with obligation to pay busuulu to plaintiff as landlord

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 defendants who had occupied a kibanja for over 70 years through their late father were bonafide occupants under Land Act s.29, not trespassers. Plaintiff's trespass claim failed as defendants' occupation was lawful through inheritance and predated the 1995 Constitution. Discovery of occupation boundaries through a survey did not transform bonafide occupancy into trespass. Defendants ordered to pay busuulu to plaintiff as landlord but plaintiff's claim dismissed with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Plaintiff's trespass claim dismissed; defendants recognised as bonafide occupants with obligation to pay busuulu to plaintiff as landlord

Facts

Plaintiff, registered proprietor of Butambala Block 70 Plot 29, obtained a court order to open boundaries in 2018. Upon surveying, she discovered defendants occupied part of her land and sued for trespass. Defendants claimed they were beneficiaries of the estate of late Sheikh Musa Kasooba who acquired the kibanja in the 1950s. The family had occupied the land for over 70 years. Defendants' father had previously litigated with plaintiff over a different portion of land in Chief Magistrate's Court Land Suit No. 12 of 2006. At locus in quo, court observed two old trees planted by defendants, a 25-year-old commercial structure, and that the kibanja had been used for grazing before defendants cultivated it. Defendants admitted never paying busuulu to plaintiff. Defendants stated they only discovered their kibanja fell on two titles (Lukambagire's and plaintiff's) upon plaintiff's survey, and expressed willingness to pay busuulu.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendants are trespassers on the plaintiff's land?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of land comprised in Butambala Block 70 Plot 29.
  • The defendants are bonafide occupants on the plaintiff's land.
  • The defendants are not trespassers on the suit land.
  • Each party bears their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Bonafide Occupancy — Definition and Requirements — Occupation for Twelve Years before 1995 Constitution
A bonafide occupant under Land Act s.29(2) is one who not only occupied land but also utilised it for more than twelve years before the coming into force of the 1995 Constitution, unchallenged by the registered owner or agent of the registered owner.
Land & Property — Trespass to Land — Elements — Unauthorized Entry and Interference with Possession
To prove trespass to land, a plaintiff must establish: (a) unauthorized entry by the defendant upon the land without permission from the person in lawful possession; (b) interference with the plaintiff's lawful possession of the land; and (c) that the defendant has no valid legal claim or right to be on the land.
Land & Property — Bonafide Occupancy — Effect of Landlord's Discovery — Trespass Claim
Where defendants have occupied land as bonafide occupants for over 70 years through inheritance from their father, a registered proprietor's subsequent discovery of the occupation upon surveying boundaries does not convert the bonafide occupancy into trespass, as the occupation was lawful through a valid claim of right.
Land & Property — Landlord and Tenant — Busuulu — Non-Payment — Trespass
Non-payment of busuulu by a bonafide occupant who was unaware of the identity of the landlord until boundaries were opened does not amount to trespass where the occupant did not deliberately decline to pay busuulu and expresses willingness to pay upon discovery.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (7)

  • Kaggwa Nkambwe v Wamala (Civil Suit No. 361 of 2017)
  • Sunday Allan Kakumilizi v Nankya Lydia (Civil Suit No. 715 of 2019)
  • Justine E. M. N Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Sheik Muhammad Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1987)
  • Kampala City Council & Another v National Housing and Construction Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2004)
  • Behange v. School Outfitters (U) Ltd [2000] E.A
  • Monica Ntarumbana Ibingira & 3 Others v. Muriel Baingana & 3 Others [1997] I KALR 41

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kisitu v Kavuma & Another (Civil Suit 108 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 1190 (9 December 2024)
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.