Wakilii

M s Bivamuntuuyo Market Vendors Association Limited v Luyombya and 8 Others (Civil Suit 661 of 2016)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 374 · 2023 Judgment for Defendants AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for trespass to land and related relief
Decision
Suit dismissed with costs to the defendants

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 the plaintiff had prima facie locus standi to sue as an alleged tenant, but failed to prove lawful possession of the suit land at the time of the alleged trespass. The tenancy agreement relied upon was not with the plaintiff company but with named individuals trading as Bivamuntuuyo Market, and the only agreement with the plaintiff had expired before the alleged trespass occurred. Suit dismissed with costs to the defendants.

Outcome

Suit dismissed with costs to the defendants

Facts

In 1997, George William Kamya approached the family of late Erisa Musoke to establish Bivamuntuuyo market on land comprised in Kyaddondo Block 5 Plot 584, believing Musoke to be the registered owner. A partnership was registered in 1998. It was later discovered the land belonged to Rosemary Nalubega. In 2008, the plaintiff company was incorporated. A tenancy agreement was executed in 2011 between Nalubega and individuals trading as Bivamuntuuyo Market. A separate six-month agreement with the plaintiff company was made in December 2011. On 11 October 2012, the 1st to 8th defendants allegedly unlawfully entered the market, locked the plaintiff's offices, and took possession. In 2013, the 9th defendant company was incorporated by the defendants. The plaintiff claimed trespass. The defendants maintained they were rightful occupants through their family connection to late Erisa Musoke, who was found by court to be a bonafide occupant.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff has locus to sue for the land comprised in Kibuga Block 5 Plot 584 at Kalerwe, Gayaza road.
  2. Whether the defendants are trespassers on the said land.
  3. What are the remedies available?

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Locus Standi — Companies — Board Resolutions
A company is not required to obtain a board resolution before instituting legal proceedings unless its memorandum and articles of association specifically require one for the institution of suits.
Trespass — Locus Standi — Possessory versus Proprietary Rights
Actions for trespass to land deal with possessory rights and not proprietary rights, and a tenant in lawful possession has locus standi to bring an action for trespass without proving ownership of the land.
Leasehold Interests — Constitutional Recognition
A lease is a recognised land tenure under Article 237(3)(d) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, and a lessee prima facie has an interest in land sufficient to confer locus standi.
Separate Legal Personality — Contracts
Once a company is incorporated, it obtains a legal existence separate from its owners, directors, or officers, and the company cannot claim rights under a contract to which it was not a party, even if its directors or shareholders were parties to that contract.
Trespass — Burden of Proof — Lawful Possession
To succeed in an action for trespass to land, a plaintiff must prove on a balance of probabilities that it was in lawful possession of the suit land at the time of the alleged trespass and that the defendants unlawfully entered and interfered with that possession.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (7)

  • Odyeki and Another v Yokonani and 4 Others (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2017)
  • Pule Opio alias Mugendo v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 57 of 2007)
  • Justine EMN Lutaaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Co (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
  • Thomas v. Sorrell (1673) Vaugha 1248R1098 at 1109
  • United Assurance Co Ltd v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1986)
  • John Katarikawe versus William Katwiremu, [1977] HCB 210 at 214
  • Tayebwa Godfrey & Besigomwe Edison vs. Kagimu Nguddee Mustafa HHC No. 118 of 2012

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

M_s_Bivamuntuuyo_Market_Vendors_Association_Limited_v_Luyombya_and_8_Others_(Civil_Suit_661_of_2016)_[2023]_UGHCLD_374_(24_October_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.