Wakilii

Lworomoi and Another v Aloti (Civil Suit 7 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 200 · 2023 Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaration of land ownership, trespass, damages for conversion and destruction of property
Decision
Suit dismissed. The 2nd Plaintiff struck out for lack of cause of action. The 1st Plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the suit land or any tortious conduct by the Defendant.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 5 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 5 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations fading — 5 citing cases on record, 5 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 the 2nd Plaintiff had no cause of action and his claim was struck out. The 1st Plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the suit land. The purported sale agreement was backdated and contrived. The 2nd Plaintiff had entered into a valid contract with Christ Church Junior School which took possession of the land. The 1st Plaintiff failed to prove allegations of conversion of building materials or destruction of fence. Suit dismissed with 70 percent costs to the Defendant.

Outcome

Suit dismissed. The 2nd Plaintiff struck out for lack of cause of action. The 1st Plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the suit land or any tortious conduct by the Defendant.

Facts

The 1st Plaintiff claimed to have purchased land measuring 40x30 metres in Pader District from the 2nd Plaintiff in January 2013 for UGX 3,000,000. He alleged he took possession, fenced it, placed building materials, and that the Defendant trespassed, damaged the fence, and took the materials. The Defendant denied the claims and contended the land was purchased by Christ Church Junior School where she was Director. The School had paid the 2nd Plaintiff in instalments from 2017 to 2019, totalling UGX 4,202,000. The School took possession and planted eucalyptus. The 2nd Plaintiff received payments and arranged for his three children to attend the school free of charge in 2018 as part of the purchase consideration. The 2nd Plaintiff later refused to sign a formal sale agreement with the School in 2019. The 1st Plaintiff's purported sale agreement was prepared by his lawyers and dated 2013.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit against the Defendant is proper or whether there is a direct cause of action against the Defendant?
  2. Who is the lawful owner of the suit land?
  3. Whether the Defendant is a trespasser on the suit land?
  4. Whether the Defendant converted the 1st Plaintiff's chattels/moveable property?
  5. Whether the Defendant destroyed the 1st Plaintiff's fence?
  6. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The plaint as drawn does not disclose any cause of action by the 2nd Plaintiff and is accordingly rejected and struck out as regards the 2nd Plaintiff only.
  • The 1st Plaintiff is not the lawful owner of the suit land.
  • The Defendant neither destroyed nor converted any property of the 1st Plaintiff.
  • The suit fails and it is hereby dismissed with 70 percent of taxed costs to be paid to the Defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Disclosure of Cause of Action
To disclose a cause of action, the plaint must show a claim of right as against the defendant, an allegation that the right of the plaintiff has been violated, and that the defendant is liable.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Test for Disclosure
In determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action, the court must look only at the plaint and its annexures, if any, and nowhere else. Witness statements and exhibits not attached to the plaint cannot be relied upon to argue disclosure of a cause of action.
Civil Procedure — Parties — Proper Party to Proceedings
A proper party to a suit is one who has a defined, subsisting, direct and substantive interest in the issues arising in the litigation, which interest is cognizable in a court of law. Proceeding against a wrong party is not tenable and may result in ineffective or unenforceable orders.
Contract Law — Sale of Land — Enforceability of Oral Contract
A contract of sale of land which is not reduced in writing may still be enforceable where the purchaser takes possession of the land with the vendor's consent and there is clear evidence of transaction regarding the land showing part performance. Payment alone is not sufficient part performance, but possession with consent is.
Contract Law — Revocation of Offer — After Acceptance
An offer may only be revoked by the offeror before it is accepted by the offeree. Once an offer has been accepted and consideration paid or other performance undertaken, the offeror cannot unilaterally rescind the valid contract by purporting to revoke the offer.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Civil Cases
The burden of proof in civil cases is always on the person who alleges, that is, the person who desires the court to give judgment as to legal right or liability in his or her favour. The burden lies on the person who would fail if no evidence were given by the defendant.
Tort Law — Trespass to Land — Elements of the Tort
Trespass to land is committed when a person makes unauthorized entry upon land and thereby interferes or portends to interfere with another person's lawful possession of the land. To succeed in a claim for trespass, the plaintiff must prove lawful possession of the land at the time of the alleged trespass.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (32)

  • Odd Jobs v Mubia [1970] EA 476
  • Victoria Tea Estates v James Bemba and Another (SCCA No. 49 of 1996)
  • Bashir Ahamed Arain v Uganda Kwegata Construction Ltd (HCCS No. 692 of 1999)
  • Okwonga George and Another v Okello James Harrison (Misc. Application No. 132 of 2021)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 514
  • Kapeka Coffee Works Ltd v NPART (CACA No. 3 of 2000)
  • Justine E.M.N Lutaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council and Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Wycliffe Kiggundu v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1993)
  • Nurdin Ali Dewji and Others v Meghi and Others (1953) 20 EACA 132
  • Sarwan Singh v Notkin (1952) 19 EACA 117
  • Nubbock & Sons Ltd v Wilkin Heywood & Clark Ltd (1899) 19 QB 198
  • Drummond Jackson v British Medical Association (1970) 1 WLR 668
  • Uganda Aluminium Ltd v Restua Twinomugisha (CACA No. 22 of 2000)
  • Attorney General v Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Filda Ejon v Concy Ejon (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2017)
  • Freku Enterprises Ltd v Attorney General [1991] HCB 68
  • Wen Jie v Nabimanya Isaac and Another (Consolidated Civil Suits No. 605 of 2014 and No. 21 of 2016)
  • Sutherland Publishing Company Ltd v Caxon Publishing Company Limited [1936] 1 All ER 177
  • Mpandi Ivan v Prism Trading and Construction Co. Ltd (HCCS No. 230 of 2013)
  • Ballet v Mingay [1943] 1 All ER 143
  • Walimu Cooperative Savings and Credit Union v Okumu Benjamin and Komakech Amos Paito (HCT Misc. Application No. 101 of 2022)
  • Godfrey Magezi and Brian Mbazira v Sudhir Ruparelia (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2001)
  • Kasifa Namusisi and 2 Others v Francis M.K Ntabaazi (Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2005)
  • Komakech Walter and 3 Others v Kilama Owani and 2 Others (HC Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2021)
  • Mary Lamunu v Kaggwa Michael (Misc. Application No. 174 of 2022)
  • JK Patel v Spear Motors Ltd (SCCA No. 4 of 1991)
  • Guangzhou Tiger Battery (U) Ltd v Incargo Freight Agencies Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2014)
  • Stanley Beinababo v Abaho Tumushabe (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1997)
  • Ocaya Samuel Owen (Administrator of the Estate of the late Ochan H.K) v Akena Kristy Rose (HC Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2015)
  • Sheikh Muhammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd [1992] KALR 127
  • Okee Benjamin and 2 Others v Otim Euronayo (HC Civil Appeal No. 0041 of 2015)

Cases citing this judgment (5)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lworomoi_and_Another_v_Aloti_(Civil_Suit_7_of_2020)_[2023]_UGHCLD_200_(13_July_2023)
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.