Wakilii

Luwedde Kasule and 2 Others v Board of Governors Directors Luwedde of Caltec Academy Makerere and Another ors (Miscellaneous Application 1861 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 148 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Review application arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 2398 of 2021, which arose from Civil Suit No. 970 of 2020
Decision
Review granted; applicants awarded general damages and mesne profits with interest

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 granted the review application and found that it had erred by failing to consider the applicants' prayers for general damages and mesne profits in its original judgment. The court awarded general damages of UGX 50,000,000 to compensate for interference with quiet enjoyment, blocked access, and inconvenience caused by the respondents' encroachment on the suit land. The court further awarded mesne profits of UGX 150,000,000 calculated at UGX 15,000,000 per year from 2012, recognising that the respondents were in wrongful occupation of prime land from which the applicants were deprived of profits. Interest at 15% per annum from the date of filing the main suit was ordered on both awards.

Outcome

Review granted; applicants awarded general damages and mesne profits with interest

Facts

The applicants filed Civil Suit No. 970 of 2020 seeking declarations that the respondents were trespassers on land comprised in Block 3 plots 859 and 860, vacant possession, general damages, mesne profits, and interest. The respondents admitted in their defence that between 2011 and 2015 they constructed a perimeter wall for their school that encroached on the applicants' land and blocked the access road. The applicants applied for judgment on admission via Miscellaneous Application No. 2398 of 2021. The court found the applicants entitled to compensation for the encroachment and ordered a survey to determine the encroached area, valuation by the Chief Government Valuer, payment within six months or eviction, and costs. However, the court concluded the suit without pronouncing on the prayers for general damages, mesne profits, and interest. The applicants then brought this review application contending that the court's failure to address those prayers was an error on the face of the record.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants are aggrieved parties entitled to seek a review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. Whether the court erred on the face of the record by failing to pronounce itself on the prayers for general damages and mesne profits in the original judgment.
  3. What quantum of general damages should be awarded to the applicants for the encroachment and inconvenience suffered.
  4. What quantum of mesne profits should be awarded to the applicants for the wrongful occupation of the suit land.

Orders

  • Application for review granted.
  • The applicants are awarded general damages of UGX 50,000,000.
  • The applicants are awarded mesne profits of UGX 150,000,000.
  • Interest of 15% per annum payable in respect of general damages and mesne profits from the date of filing the main suit until payment in full.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Review — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record
A court may review its own decree or order under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, including where the court fails to pronounce itself on prayers specifically pleaded and sought by a party.
Review — Aggrieved Person — Standing to Seek Review
An aggrieved person entitled to seek a review is one who has suffered a legal grievance which has wrongly deprived him of something or a right; a party to a suit who was not granted relief specifically pleaded in the plaint is an aggrieved person with standing to apply for review.
General Damages — Entitlement Without Proof — Presumed Consequences
General damages are such as the law presumes to be the direct natural or probable consequence of the act complained of and arise by inference of law; a party is entitled to general damages even without proof of the same as they are presumed to have naturally resulted from the breach of duty.
General Damages — Assessment — Factors to be Considered
In assessing general damages, the court should be guided by the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience suffered, and the nature and extent of the injury; general damages are restitutive in nature and intended to place the injured party in the position they would have been had they not suffered the wrong.
Mesne Profits — Definition and Entitlement — Wrongful Possession
Mesne profits are those profits which a person in wrongful possession of property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received from it; for a claim of mesne profits to accrue, a defendant must be in wrongful possession of the suit property as against the plaintiff and deriving profits from the property.
Mesne Profits — Calculation — Basis of Assessment
The calculation of mesne profits is based on the profits that the defendant in wrongful possession has actually received or could have received with ordinary diligence, rather than on the losses incurred by the owner due to the deprivation of possession.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (8)

  • Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd HCB 12
  • Maisha Vicky v Madraa Emily (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2012)
  • Luzinda v Ssekamatte and 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 366 of 2017)
  • Charles Acire v Myaana Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Co. Ltd versus Umar Salim [1992] V KALR 17
  • Uganda Commercial Bank vs. Deo Kigozi (2002)1 EA 305
  • Busiro Coffee Farmers & Dealers Ltd v Tom Kayongo and 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 532 of 1992)
  • Kyalimpa v Nassozi (Civil Suit No. 794 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Luwedde_Kasule_and_2_Others_v_Board_of_Governors_Directors_Luwedde_of_Caltec_Academy_Makerere_and_Another_ors_(Miscellaneous_Application_1861_of_2022)_[2023]_UGHCLD_148_(12_June_20
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.