Wakilii

Lucia Burungi v Uganda National Roads Authority and Another (Civil Suit 439 of 2020)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 192 · 2024 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 excavation of bentonite during road construction on plaintiff's exploration licence area
Decision
Judgment for plaintiff with declarations, special damages of USD 2,542,600, general damages of UGX 5,000,000, and costs awarded against 1st defendant

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 a holder of an exploration licence has exclusive rights protected by Article 26 of the Constitution and that government excavation of bentonite during road construction through the licensed area constitutes compulsory deprivation of property requiring compensation. The suit was not barred by limitation as no award had been made under the Land Acquisition Act and the action was filed within six years of the Deputy Attorney General's opinion recognising entitlement to compensation. The court awarded special damages of USD 2,542,600 for the excavated bentonite and general damages of UGX 5,000,000.

Outcome

Judgment for plaintiff with declarations, special damages of USD 2,542,600, general damages of UGX 5,000,000, and costs awarded against 1st defendant

Facts

The plaintiff held Exploration Licence No. EL 0760 for bentonite granted on 15 April 2011 and renewed in 2014. On 4 August 2011, the 1st defendant commenced civil works upgrading the Hoima-Kaiso-Tonya Road through the plaintiff's licence area. During construction, the 1st defendant excavated 25,426 tonnes of bentonite. The plaintiff issued a notice of intention to sue on 16 April 2014. The 1st defendant responded that it was consulting relevant government authorities. A valuation report completed on 15 December 2015 valued the excavated bentonite at USD 2,542,600. The Solicitor General (13 April 2016) and Deputy Attorney General (4 August 2020) both opined that the plaintiff's claim was legitimate and she should be compensated. No compensation was paid. The plaintiff filed suit on 22 December 2020. The 1st defendant raised preliminary objections that the suit was barred by limitation and disclosed no cause of action.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation under the Land Acquisition Act.
  2. Whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation under the Limitation Act.
  3. Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendants.
  4. Whether the plaintiff's right to property was violated by the 1st defendant's actions within the area.
  5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation.
  6. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • It is declared that the 1st Defendant's actions violated the Plaintiff's exploration rights.
  • The Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the lost bentonite measuring 25,426 tonnes as the exploration licence holder.
  • The 1st Defendant is ordered to pay the Plaintiff special damages for the lost bentonite in the sum of USD 2,542,600 (United States Dollars Two Million Five Hundred Forty-Two Thousand Six Hundred Only).
  • The 1st Defendant pays the Plaintiff general damages of UGX 5,000,000 (five million Uganda shillings only).
  • The 1st Defendant pays costs of this suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Mining Rights — Exploration Licences — Nature of Rights Conferred
An exploration licence under the Mining Act 2003 confers on the holder an exclusive right to carry on exploration operations in the licence area and for the mineral to which the licence relates, notwithstanding that property in all minerals vests in the Government under section 3 of the Act.
Property Rights — Protection from Deprivation — Article 26 Application to Exploration Licences
The exclusive right conferred by law on an exploration licence holder to carry on exploration operations in the licence area is a right protected by Article 26 of the Constitution, and government may not compulsorily deprive a licence holder of that right without prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation.
Land Acquisition — Limitation — Section 13 Land Acquisition Act — When Time Runs
Section 13 of the Land Acquisition Act, which requires an appeal to the High Court within sixty days of an award, applies only where an award has been made under section 6 of the Act. Where no award has been made, a claimant is not barred from filing suit.
Limitation — Trespass to Land — Continuing Tort
Trespass to land is a continuing tort for which an action accrues each day the trespass continues, and the law of limitation does not apply to it in the strict sense applicable to other tortious claims.
Attorney General — Binding Effect of Legal Advice — Article 119(3)
Under Article 119(3) of the Constitution, the Attorney General is the principal legal adviser of the Government and his opinions are legally binding on government bodies including statutory corporations such as UNRA.
Mining Rights — Cause of Action — Excavation of Minerals in Licence Area
Where a government body excavates minerals within an exploration licence area in the course of a public project, the licence holder has a cause of action against the government body and the Attorney General, notwithstanding that property in all minerals vests in the Government.
Damages — Special Damages — Mineral Excavation — Valuation Evidence
Special damages for minerals excavated by a defendant may be proved by valuation report evidence showing the quantity of mineral removed and the value per unit, and it is not fatal to the claim that the valuation corresponds to a survey conducted by the defendant.

Legislation cited (20)

Cases cited (22)

  • Mohammed Mbabazi v Uganda National Roads Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 346 of 2020)
  • Nabaweesi Gertrude v Uganda National Roads Authority (Civil Suit No. 15 of 2020)
  • Henry Wabui and Another v Rogers Ddungu and 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 102 of 2009)
  • Fredrick James Junju v Madvani Group Ltd and Commissioner Land Registration (Civil Suit No. 508 of 2014)
  • Ulego and 3 Others v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 138 of 2004)
  • Mohammed B Kasasa v Jaspher Buyonga Sirasi (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2008)
  • Odyek Alex and Another v Gena Yokonani and Others (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2017)
  • Eriyasafu -v- Wilberforce Kuluse (1994) III KALR, 10
  • Elizabeth Sylvia Musaazi v Bwanika Rose (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2014)
  • Konskier -v- Goodman Ltd (1928) 1 KB 421
  • Goodman Agencies Ltd and Another v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 4 of 2008)
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Auto Garage & Anor -v- Motokov (No. 3) (1971) EA 514
  • Kapeka Coffee Works Ltd v NPART (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • Uganda National Roads Authority v Irumba and Another (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2014)
  • Maximov Oleg Petrovich -v- Premchandra Shenoi and Anor (1998) KALR
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v A.S. Transporters (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank -v- Kigozi [2002] 1 EA. 305
  • Takiya Kashwahiri and Another v Kajungu Denis (Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Uganda National Roads Authority v Irumba Asumani and Another (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lucia Burungi v Uganda National Roads Authority and Another (Civil Suit 439 of 2020) [2024] UGHCCD 192 (13 November 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.