Wakilii

Komakech George v Attorney General and Another (Civil Suit No. 84 of 2003)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 62 · 2026 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for compensation following compulsory acquisition of land by Government in 1987/88, with counterclaim by second defendant
Decision
Plaintiff awarded compensation from Government for half an acre within the football field; counterclaim dismissed; second defendant ordered to pay general damages and costs to plaintiff

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 High Court held that the estate of the late Serina Lakot, represented by the plaintiff as administrator of his father's estate, owns half an acre of land within the UPDF football field represented by Temporary Occupation License (TOL) 17, and is entitled to Government compensation for that portion. The court found that TOL 95, claimed by the second defendant, was located in a different area (south of the first football field) and had been transferred to another licensee before the 1987/88 Government acquisition. The counterclaim was dismissed. The second defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff general damages of UGX 10,000,000 for frustrating timely Government compensation.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded compensation from Government for half an acre within the football field; counterclaim dismissed; second defendant ordered to pay general damages and costs to plaintiff

Facts

In 1987, the National Resistance Army (now UPDF) asked occupants of land adjacent to the Army Barracks in Gulu to vacate for security reasons due to attacks by the Holy Spirit Movement. In 1988, the army graded the land, destroying homes and development, and established a football field. In 2003, Government announced plans to compensate affected persons. Ochan Polycarp, administrator of his mother Serina Lakot's estate, sued the Attorney General claiming compensation for land represented by Temporary Occupation Licenses (TOLs) 17 and 18. After Ochan's death, his son Komakech George continued the suit as administrator of his father's estate. Odonga Francis, claiming the same land under TOL 95 as administrator of his father Inyasio Latigo's estate, filed a separate suit in 2015 which was later consolidated, then deconsolidated, and ultimately became a counterclaim against Komakech George. Verification meetings were held to determine rightful owners. The dispute centered on whether TOL 17 and TOL 95 represented the same land, and who was entitled to Government compensation.

Issues

  1. Who is the rightful owner of the suit land?
  2. Whether either claimant committed trespass on part of the suit land?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The estate of the late Serina Lakot owns half an acre of land within the football field represented by TOL 17.
  • The plaintiff shall receive compensation from Government for the said half acre.
  • The Attorney General shall compute the compensation value as at 20 April 2015 when the Government did the last valuation report, adjusted to reflect that TOL 18 is outside the football field and that the plaintiff's area within the football field is approximately half an acre only.
  • The second defendant (Odonga Francis) shall pay the plaintiff general damages of UGX 10,000,000 for frustrating timely Government compensation.
  • General damages shall attract interest of 10 percent per annum from the date of judgment until full payment.
  • The second defendant shall exclusively pay the costs incurred by the plaintiff in this litigation, limited to the period 26 November 2015 up to the date of final taxation of the bill of costs.
  • The counterclaim is dismissed with costs.
  • The counterclaimant shall pay costs of the defendant to the counterclaim/plaintiff for the period 18 November 2018 until final taxation.
  • If beneficiaries whose compensation packages the Attorney General halted have not been paid to date, Government shall pay them compensation at the current market value.

Rules and key headnotes

Temporary Occupation Licenses — Distinction from Surveyed Plots — Identification of Land
Temporary Occupation License (TOL) numbers issued by municipal councils represent license numbers granted to occupants, not precise physical areas delineable on the ground, and do not constitute surveyed plot numbers.
Compulsory Acquisition — Constitutional Requirements — Compensation
Where Government compulsorily acquires land under Article 13 of the 1967 Constitution for defence purposes, the constitutional command requires payment of adequate compensation, though not necessarily prior to taking possession, and failure to pay compensation even after taking possession constitutes a breach of constitutional duty.
Locus Standi — Legal Representatives — Succession to Litigation
An administrator of a deceased person's estate has locus standi under sections 176, 187 and 188 of the Succession Act to continue litigation commenced by the deceased, and where the deceased sued as administrator of another estate, the successor administrator has standing to protect that estate's interests and receive compensation due to it.
Preliminary Objections — Timing — Waiver by Conduct
A preliminary objection on a point of law, though capable of being raised at any time, should be taken at the earliest opportunity, and where counsel concedes a party's standing during inter-party conferencing and scheduling, the objection is deemed abandoned and cannot be raised in final submissions.
Proof of Ownership — Municipal Records — Succession of Licensees
Where municipal council registers show successive licensees for the same Temporary Occupation License number, and the later licensee made rent payments evidenced by vouchers while the earlier licensee ceased payments, ownership of the land represented by that license passes to the later licensee, and at the time of compulsory acquisition, the later licensee is the rightful owner entitled to compensation.
General Damages — Frustration of Compensation — Property Rights
The right to receive compensation from Government following compulsory acquisition is a property right within the meaning of Article 26 of the Constitution, and where a third party wrongfully frustrates timely receipt of Government compensation through baseless persistent claims, the affected party is entitled to general damages for the inconvenience and interference with property rights.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (26)

  • Namusisi v Ntabaazi (Supreme Court of Uganda, 2006)
  • Madhvani International SA v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1990)
  • Kiwanuka Fredrick Kakumutwe v Kibirige Edward (Civil Appeal No. 272 of 2017)
  • Eastern Radio Service v RJ Patel (1962)
  • Dhanji Ramji v Malde Timber Co (Court of Appeal, 1970)
  • Lworomoi and Another v Aloti (Civil Suit No. 7 of 2020)
  • Dima Dominic Poro v Inyani Godfrey (High Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2016)
  • Justine Katantazi v Sylvia Nampija (Miscellaneous Application No. 52 of 2004)
  • Njau and Others v City Council of Nairobi (1976)
  • Kushaba Ronald v Commissioner Land Registration and Jane Bitalo Bisaso (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2023)
  • Saggu v Roadmaster Cycles (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal, 2002)
  • Sebuliba v Cooperative Bank Ltd (1982)
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947)
  • Attorney General and Apac District Administration v Rutama Geoffrey and Misango Abel (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2015)
  • Ngoma-Ngime v Electoral Commission and Hon Winnie Byanyima (Election Petition Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Simon Tendo Kabenge v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd and Phillip Dandee (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2015)
  • Fam International Limited and Another v Muhammed Hamid (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1993)
  • Justine EMN Lutaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Co Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Sheikh Muhammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (1992)
  • Timbigamba Simon and Others v Ker Kwaro Palabek and Others (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 150 of 2021)
  • Luzinda v Ssekamatte and 3 Others (2020)
  • Tororo Cement Co Ltd v Fronika International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Hadija Nakibuka v Attorney General of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1993)
  • Odd Jobs v Mubia (1970)
  • Victoria Tea Estates v James Bemba and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1996)
  • Bashir Ahamed Arain v Uganda Kwegata Construction Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 692 of 1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Komakech George v Attorney General and Another (Civil Suit No. 84 of 2003) [2026] UGHC 62 (28 January 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.