Wakilii

Luwedde Kasule and Another (Suing through their lawful Attorney Bisaso) v The Board of Governors Directors of Caltec Academic Makerere and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 23

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 2398 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judgment on admission arising from civil suit for trespass and encroachment
Decision
Application granted; judgment on admission entered; compensation to be assessed and paid within 6 months failing which eviction to follow

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

Held that where a suit has been referred to mediation, it does not abate under Order XIA rule 4(e) of the Civil Procedure Rules despite failure to take out summons for directions. The respondents' admission in their written statement of defence that they constructed a perimeter wall encroaching onto the applicants' land was plain, obvious, and unambiguous. Judgment on admission granted. The actual area of encroachment to be determined by KCCA survey; compensation to be assessed by the Chief Government Valuer and paid within six months, failing which eviction would follow.

Outcome

Application granted; judgment on admission entered; compensation to be assessed and paid within 6 months failing which eviction to follow

Facts

The applicants were registered owners of Block 3 plots 859 and 860, land at Makerere. Between 2011 and 2015, the respondents, who operated Caltec Academy Makerere, constructed a perimeter wall that encroached onto part of the applicants' land and the former access road. The respondents admitted this encroachment in their written statement of defence filed in Civil Suit No. 970 of 2020. The parties entered mediation and the respondents agreed to pay compensation of UGX 300,000,000. A boundary survey was conducted establishing the total encroached area as 0.081 hectares. The parties could not agree on the terms of settlement, with disputes arising over the exact measurements, the creation of a new access road, and subdivision of titles. Mediation failed in October 2021. The applicants then filed this application seeking judgment on admission for the respondents' acknowledged encroachment, requesting either demolition of the encroaching structures or compensation of UGX 800,000,000.

Issues

  1. Whether Civil Suit No. 970 of 2020 had abated for failure to take out summons for directions within 28 days.
  2. Whether there are grounds warranting the entry of judgment on admission under Order 13 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. Whether the respondents' admission of encroachment on the applicants' land was sufficiently clear and unambiguous to support judgment on admission.

Orders

  • Judgment on admission granted.
  • The final determination of the actual area and size of the encroachment shall be determined through a survey to be conducted by the KCCA survey department.
  • Each applicant to provide their respective certificates of title for the areas encroached on and a new access road to be mapped out.
  • The total amount of compensation payable to the applicants to be assessed by the Chief Government Valuer.
  • The said amount shall be paid within a period of 6 months after the assessment is made; upon failure to meet that obligation an eviction shall be carried out against the respondents.
  • Costs of the suit and of the survey and assessment of the value to be met by the respondents.
  • Civil Suit No. 0970 of 2020 hereby concluded.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Abatement — Mediation Exception — Order XIA rule 4(e) CPR
Where an action has been referred to mediation, the suit does not abate for failure to take out summons for directions within the 28-day period prescribed under Order XIA rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as mediation falls within the exception provided by Order XIA rule 4(e).
Civil Procedure — Judgment on Admission — Order 13 rule 6 CPR — Standard for Admission
For judgment to be entered on admission under Order 13 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the admission must be explicit, plain and obvious, as plain as a pikestaff, clearly readable, and not open to doubt or requiring interpretation.
Land & Property — Trespass and Encroachment — Admission in Pleadings — Compensation
Where a defendant admits in their written statement of defence that they constructed structures encroaching onto the plaintiff's land, such admission constitutes a sufficient basis for entering judgment on admission, with compensation to be assessed by the Chief Government Valuer and the actual encroached area to be determined by official survey.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (7)

  • Asaba Charles and Another v Kafeero Andrew and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 2004 of 2021)
  • Excel Construction Ltd v Attorney General (HCCS No. 3007)
  • John Peter Nazareth v Barclays Bank International Ltd (E.A.C.A. 39 of 1976)
  • African Insurance Co v Uganda Airlines [1985] HCB 53
  • Mohamed B.M. Dhanji v Lulu & Co [1960] EA 541
  • Momayi v Hatim and Another [2003] 2 EA
  • Choitram v Nazari [1976-1985] EA 52

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Luwedde_Kasule_and_Another_(Suing_through_their_lawful_Attorney_Bisaso)_v_The_Board_of_Governors_Directors_of_Caltec_Academic_Makerere_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._23
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.