Wakilii

Lubega v Uganda National Roads Authority (Civil Suit No. 713 of 2016)

High Court · [2021] UGHCLD 162 · 2021 Judgment for Plaintiff; Counterclaim Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for trespass, misrepresentation, and damages with counterclaim for refund of compensation erroneously paid
Decision
Defendant to pay general damages of UGX 30,000,000 to Plaintiff; Plaintiff to refund UGX 65,837,500 compensation to Defendant; certificate of title already returned to Plaintiff during proceedings

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 Defendant did not trespass on the Plaintiff's land, as the Plaintiff remained in possession throughout. No misrepresentation occurred; both parties operated under a common mistake arising from surveying errors that incorrectly showed the Plaintiff's land as affected by the Kampala Northern Bypass road project. The Defendant paid UGX 65,837,500 in compensation for land that was not actually expropriated. The Court ordered the Plaintiff to refund the entire sum to the Defendant and awarded the Plaintiff general damages of UGX 30,000,000 for inconvenience caused by delays in the compensation process and return of the certificate of title.

Outcome

Defendant to pay general damages of UGX 30,000,000 to Plaintiff; Plaintiff to refund UGX 65,837,500 compensation to Defendant; certificate of title already returned to Plaintiff during proceedings

Facts

The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 230 Plot 1651. The Defendant was implementing the Kampala Northern Bypass road project. In 2011, based on surveys by UGASURV, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that approximately 0.23 acres of his land were affected by the project. The Plaintiff handed over his certificate of title in April 2012 for assessment of compensation. A resurvey in November 2012 revealed that the total acreage shown on the title (0.810 hectares) was erroneous; the actual area was 0.688 hectares. An Amending Area Statement corrected the deed print but not the certificate. In August 2015, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff UGX 65,837,500 as compensation. In 2019, a boundary opening exercise established that the Plaintiff's property was entirely outside the road right of way and no land had been expropriated. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff in August 2019 of the error and demanded refund. The certificate of title was returned to the Plaintiff in October 2020 after prolonged requests. The Plaintiff sued for trespass, misrepresentation, and damages. The Defendant counterclaimed for refund of the erroneously paid compensation.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant trespassed on the Plaintiff's land comprised in Kyadondo Block 230 Plot 1651 at Kamuli?
  2. Whether there was misrepresentation on the part of the Defendant?
  3. Whether the Plaintiff suffered loss as a result of the Defendant's actions and/or omissions?
  4. Whether the Counter-claimant is entitled to a refund of UGX 65,837,500 from the Counter-Defendant?
  5. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • A declaration that the Plaintiff is the registered owner of the suit land comprised in Kyadondo Block 230 Plot 1651 at Kamuli subject to the amendments in the land area as reflected in the Deed Print.
  • The Defendant is to pay the Plaintiff general damages of UGX 30,000,000.
  • Interest is awarded on the above general damages at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The Plaintiff is to refund to the Defendant the compensation sum received of UGX 65,837,500.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Trespass to Land — Elements of the Cause of Action
To succeed in a claim for trespass to land, the plaintiff must prove that the suit land belonged to him, that the defendant had entered upon it, and that the entry was unlawful in that it was made without permission or the defendant had no claim, right, or interest in the suit land.
Misrepresentation — Common Mistake Negating Misrepresentation
Where both parties to an agreement are under a common mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, consent is obtained by mistake of fact and the agreement is void. In such circumstances, there is no misrepresentation, as neither party intended to deceive the other.
Void Contracts — Restoration of Advantages Received
Where an agreement is found to be void or when a contract becomes void, a person who received any advantage under that agreement or contract is bound to restore it or to pay compensation for it to the person from whom he or she received the advantage.
Special Damages — Proof and Certainty Requirements
In cases of pecuniary loss claimed as special damages, the exact or approximate amount can be proved and, if proved, will be awarded. However, prospective loss, such as opportunity cost of future projects or anticipated investment returns, cannot be claimed as special damages because it has not been sustained at the date of trial and must be supported by solid documentary evidence.
General Damages — Assessment Principles
In the assessment of general damages, the court should be mainly guided by the nature and extent of the injury suffered. General damages are not intended to better the position of the claimant. The circumstances of each case determine the quantum of the award.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (13)

  • Sebuliba v Co-operative Bank Ltd [1982] HCB 129
  • Justine E. M. N Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Eng. (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Sheik Muhammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 4 of 1987)
  • Katende v Uganda Land Commission (Civil Suit No. 573 of 2015) [2019] UGHCLD 9
  • Onega Obel and Another v Attorney General and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 006 of 2002)
  • AZK Services Ltd v Crane Bank Ltd (Civil Suit No. 334 of 2016) [2018] UGCommC 63
  • Horsfall v Thomas [1862] 1 H&C 90
  • Long v Lloyd [1958] 1 WLR 753
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • Dr. James Kashugyera Tumwine & Anor Vs Sr. Willie Magara & Anor
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2007)
  • Mahabir Kishore v Madhya Pradesh 1990 AIR 313

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lubega_v_Uganda_National_Roads_Authority_(Civil_Suit_No._713_of_2016)_[2021]_UGHCLD_162_(12_November_2021)
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.