Wakilii

Laban Kurama v Zion Construction Limited (Civil Suit 2383 of 2016)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 136 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for compensation arising from land sale and demolition of developments
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff with orders for refund of purchase price, transfer fees, general damages, and costs

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 the defendant misrepresented the status of the land by selling it to the plaintiff with an assurance that it was free from encumbrances when the previous owner had not been fully compensated. The contract was voidable and avoided by the plaintiff. The defendant was ordered to refund the purchase price with interest, pay transfer fees, and pay general damages of UGX 50,000,000.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff with orders for refund of purchase price, transfer fees, general damages, and costs

Facts

The plaintiff purchased land from the defendant on 4 June 2012 for UGX 5,400,000 with an assurance that it was free from third party claims. He paid an additional UGX 350,000 as transfer fees and took possession, constructing a residential house. During construction, unknown persons claiming to be previous owners who had not been compensated demolished the house to foundation level. The defendant offered to help rebuild only to wall plate level. Evidence showed that the previous owner (DW2) was paid an initial instalment of UGX 500,000 on 28 April 2012 but did not receive full compensation of UGX 2,000,000 until 7 August 2013, after the demolition occurred on 12 March 2013. The plaintiff sued for compensation.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff has a cause of action against the Defendant.
  2. Whether it was the previous owners of the suit land who demolished the Plaintiff's developments.
  3. Whether the Defendant had compensated the previous owners before the Plaintiff purchased the suit land.
  4. Whether the Plaintiff spent a total of UGX 50,574,800.
  5. Whether there existed an enforceable contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant.
  6. What remedies are available to the Plaintiff.

Orders

  • The Defendant shall refund the consideration paid by the Plaintiff under the avoided agreement dated 04/06/2012 amounting to UGX 5,400,000 with interest at a rate of 17% per annum from the said date until payment in full.
  • The Defendant shall pay UGX 350,000 being money paid by the Plaintiff as fees to transfer the suit land into his name.
  • The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff UGX 50,000,000 (Fifty Million Shillings) as general damages.
  • The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Misrepresentation — Voidable Contracts — Sale of Land with Encumbrances
Where a vendor of land represents that the land is free from encumbrances when in fact the previous owner has not been fully compensated and retains an equitable interest, the contract is voidable at the option of the purchaser for misrepresentation under Section 15(1) of the Contracts Act.
Voidable Contracts — Effect of Avoidance
A voidable contract is enforceable at the option of one party and ceases to be enforceable when avoided, becoming void. Once avoided by the innocent party, there exists no enforceable contract between the parties.
Sale of Land — Vendor's Warranty — Third Party Interests
A vendor who warrants that land is free from third party interests or encumbrances is liable where the vendor has not extinguished equitable claims of previous occupants at the time of sale to the purchaser.
Cause of Action — Determination
In determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action, the court must assume the facts pleaded are true and restrict itself to the plaint and its annexures without entering into the evidence adduced by the parties, as that would be determining the merit of the plaintiff's allegations.
Special Damages — Proof
While oral evidence may suffice to prove special damages, the oral evidence must be cogent enough to discharge the burden of proof. Where a plaintiff claims a specific quantum of special damages without documentary or sufficiently cogent oral evidence, the claim for special damages fails, though general damages may be awarded.
General Damages — Assessment
In determining the quantum of general damages, the court is guided by the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience suffered by the innocent party, and the nature and extent of the wrong suffered. The court's intention is not to punish the defendant but to put the plaintiff in the position he or she was in prior to the wrongful act.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (19)

  • Oketha Dafala Valente v Attorney General of Uganda (High Court Civil Suit No. 69 of 2004)
  • Auto Garage & Ors v Motokov (No.3) [1971] 1 EA 514
  • Joseph Senabulya v Maria Nakintu & Anor (High Court Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2016)
  • Tororo Cement Co Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA
  • Ismail Serugo v KCC & AG (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Simoni Musoke v R [1958] EA 715
  • John Bwiza v Patrick Yowasi Kadama (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2011)
  • Wakabi v Asaba (Court of Appeal No. 64 of 2008)
  • William Kasozi v DFCU Bank Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 1326 of 2000)
  • Hellen Ochan v Odur Willis (High Court Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2019)
  • Eladam Enterprises Ltd v SG (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 20 of 2002)
  • KCCA v Nakaye [1972] EA 446
  • GAPCO (U) Ltd v A.S Transporters Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 07 of 2007)
  • Kampala City Council v Nakaye [1972] EA 446
  • Hororanto Busulwa Ssalongo v Abdu Senabulya & 5 Others (High Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2002)
  • Kibimba Rice Company Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1988)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Hajji Yahaya Sekalega (High Court Civil Suit No. 185 of 2009)
  • Boschcon Civil & Electrical Construction Co., (U) Ltd v Salini Construttiri Spa (High Court Civil Suit No. 151 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Laban_Kurama_v_Zion_Construction_Limited_(Civil_Suit_2383_of_2016)_[2025]_UGHCLD_136_(28_April_2025)
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.