Wakilii

Mubiru and Another v Semakula alias Kali Smart and Another (Civil Suit No. 1068 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 65 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for eviction and trespass to land
Decision
Defendants ordered to vacate the suit land; permanent injunction granted; damages and costs awarded to plaintiffs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (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 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations fading — 3 citing cases on record, 3 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

The High Court held that the plaintiffs, as registered owners holding certificates of title for Busiro Block 462 Plots 410, 411 and 412, had legal possession and capacity to sue in trespass. The defendants' unauthorised entry onto the suit land in June 2020 constituted trespass. The 2nd defendant's claim to a Kibanja interest was rejected as it departed from pleadings and was unsupported by evidence. Judgment entered for the plaintiffs with eviction orders, permanent injunction, and general damages of UGX 20,000,000.

Outcome

Defendants ordered to vacate the suit land; permanent injunction granted; damages and costs awarded to plaintiffs

Facts

In May 2012, the plaintiffs purchased three adjacent plots (Busiro Block 462 Plots 410, 411 and 412) from Jomayi Property Consultants Ltd at Bukomye. Certificates of title for Plots 410 and 412 were transferred into the 2nd plaintiff's name; registration of Plot 411 into the 1st plaintiff's name was underway. The plaintiffs took possession and cultivated maize on the land. In June 2020, the defendants entered the land without permission, fenced portions with poles and barbed wire, and undertook agricultural activities. The defendants also started construction on the land. The plaintiffs engaged police and local authorities to remove the defendants, but interference continued. The 1st defendant did not enter appearance. The 2nd defendant claimed to own land away from the suit land and alleged that his late father owned the land and he inherited it, subsequently selling 10 acres to one Mulindwa Robert who fraudulently transferred it to Jomayi Property Consultants Ltd. The 2nd defendant denied encroaching on the plaintiffs' land.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants are trespassers on the plaintiffs' land?
  2. What remedies are available to the plaintiffs if any?

Orders

  • An order of eviction/vacant possession against the defendants or anyone claiming to have acquired interest in the suit land from the defendants in respect of land comprised in Busiro Block 462 Plots 410, 411 & 412 Land at Bukomye.
  • A permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, successors in title or agents or any one claiming to have acquired interest in the suit land from the defendants from further acts of trespass on land comprised in Busiro Block 462 Plots 410, 411 & 412 Land at Bukomye.
  • An order for payment of general damages of UGX 20,000,000 (Uganda shillings twenty million only) to be paid by the defendants jointly and/or severally.
  • An order for payment of interest of 12% per annum on general damages from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • An order for payment of costs of the suit by the defendants jointly and/or severally.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Trespass to Land — Elements
Trespass to land occurs when a person makes an unauthorised entry upon land and thereby interferes with another person's lawful possession of that land. The tort is committed against the person in actual or constructive possession of the land.
Land & Property — Locus Standi in Trespass Actions — Legal Possession
Legal possession for purposes of maintaining an action in trespass is vested in the holder of a certificate of title to the land. Physical occupation is not required; the slightest amount of possession suffices. By virtue of a certificate of title, the holder has legal possession and capacity to sue in trespass.
Land & Property — Kibanja Interest — Burden of Proof
A person claiming to be a Kibanja holder or customary tenant must adduce evidence demonstrating settlement on the land with the consent of the registered mailo land owner. The claimant has the burden to prove that he holds a Kibanja interest or is a lawful or bona fide occupant as defined under the Land Act s.29(1) & (2).
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Departure from Pleadings
A party may not at trial advance a claim or defence that departs from the pleadings. Claims raised for the first time in submissions without corresponding averments in the pleadings are impermissible and must fail.
Civil Procedure — Consolidation of Suits — Procedure
Consolidation of suits is governed by Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules. An application for consolidation must be by summons in chambers under sub-rule 2. A prayer for consolidation raised for the first time in written submissions pending judgment, without a formal application, is not in accordance with the rules and will be disallowed.
Damages & Quantum — Mesne Profits — When Available
Mesne profits are damages suffered by a landlord kept out of possession of land by a trespasser. They are payable by a person in possession or occupation of land when that person has no right to be in possession. Where the plaintiff has remained in possession save for a brief unauthorised entry by the defendant, mesne profits are not awarded.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (9)

  • Lutaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Lubowa v Kitara Enterprise Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 4 of 1987)
  • Sadala v Salamasida (H.C.C.A No. 1 of 1988)
  • Bakintuma and Another v Muwonge and Another (H.C.C.S No. 236 of 2014)
  • Juma and Another v Nantume and Another (H.C.C.S No. 363 of 2010)
  • Namugaya v Nakiranda (H.C.C.A No. 3 of 2015)
  • Senkungu and 4 Others v Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2014)
  • Tuhirirwe v Rwamuhanda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2007)
  • Mugerwa v Jomayi Property Consultants Ltd (Civil Suit No. 404 of 2016)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Mubiru_and_Another_v_Semakula_alias_Kali_Smart_and_Another_(Civil_Suit_No._1068_of_2020)_[2023]_UGHCLD_65_(17_March_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.