Wakilii

Mukiibi and Another v Najjuma and 6 Others (CIVIL SUIT NO. 1005 OF 1999)

High Court · [2000] UGHC 56 · 2000 Judgment for Plaintiffs — Trespass Established AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaration of trespass and eviction; interlocutory judgment entered but set aside and suit heard on merits
Decision
Six defendants found to be trespassers; eviction ordered with demolition of illegal structures and awards of general damages and mesne profits; suit against seventh defendant dismissed

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 held that the suit kibanja belonged to the estate of the late Godfrey Kiwanuka Kyansimbi, having been devised to him by will. The court found that six of the seven defendants were trespassers, having unlawfully built structures on the kibanja and remained despite protests from the lawful owner. The first defendant's initially lawful entry became trespass when she remained after notice to quit. The seventh defendant was acquitted as there was no evidence he entered or took possession of the property. Plaintiffs were awarded general damages, mesne profits, eviction orders, and demolition of illegal structures.

Outcome

Six defendants found to be trespassers; eviction ordered with demolition of illegal structures and awards of general damages and mesne profits; suit against seventh defendant dismissed

Facts

The deceased Godfrey Kiwanuka Kyansimbi inherited a one-acre kibanja at Block 12 Plot 611 Musajjalumbwa Road Mengo from his mother Abisagi Batesanaliwo under her will probated in 1996. The first defendant, Veronica Najjuma, initially entered the property lawfully to nurse a sick person named Peter, but remained after Peter's death and after being asked to leave by Kyansimbi. She sold portions of the kibanja to the second to sixth defendants, who built houses thereon. Kyansimbi protested their presence during his lifetime. After his death in July 1998, his son (first plaintiff) and widow (second plaintiff) brought suit seeking a declaration of trespass, eviction, and damages. The first defendant was an LC1 official in the area. None of the defendants filed defences.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit kibanja belongs to the estate of Godfrey Kiwanuka Kyansimbi.
  2. Whether or not the defendants are trespassers on the said kibanja.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Suit against the seventh defendant dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • Declared that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants are trespassers on part of the suit kibanja.
  • Plaintiffs awarded UGX 5,000,000 general damages: 1st defendant to pay UGX 2,500,000; 2nd to 6th defendants to each pay UGX 500,000.
  • Defendants to pay plaintiffs UGX 8,000,000 mesne profits: 1st defendant UGX 4,000,000; 2nd to 6th defendants each UGX 800,000.
  • First to sixth defendants evicted from the portions of the kibanja occupied by them.
  • Illegal structures erected by defendants to be removed and vacant possession given to plaintiffs.
  • General damages and mesne profits to bear interest at court rate from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Defendants to pay plaintiffs costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Locus Standi — Beneficial Interest — Right to Sue Before Grant of Letters of Administration
A son and widow of a deceased proprietor have locus standi to file suit to protect their beneficial interest in estate property even where no letters of administration have been obtained and the estate has not been distributed, where their standing is founded on their respective beneficial interests as customary heir and widow.
Interlocutory Judgment — Order 9 Rule 6 — Applicability to Land Claims
Order 9 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which permits entry of interlocutory judgment where a defendant fails to file defence in a claim for pecuniary damages only or detention of goods, does not apply to suits concerning immovable property. Land is not 'goods' within the meaning of the rule. Such suits should proceed under Order 9 Rule 8.
Trespass to Land — Definition — Elements
Trespass to land is a wrongful act done in disturbance of the possession of property of another against his will. Every unlawful entry by one person on land in the possession of another is a trespass for which an action lies, although no actual damage is done.
Trespass to Land — Licence Revocation — Reasonable Notice
Where a person enters land lawfully under licence for a particular purpose, the licence may be revoked by notice. A notice determining a licence revokes it immediately upon service and becomes operative on expiration of a reasonable time from the date of service. If the licensee remains after reasonable notice, the initially lawful entry becomes trespass ab initio.
Survival of Cause of Action — Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
A cause of action in trespass that accrued to a deceased person survives his death under section 13(1) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and is enforceable by his successors in title.
Mesne Profits — Definition — Exclusion of Profits from Improvements
Mesne profits are those profits which the person in wrongful possession of property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received, together with interest on such profits, but shall not include profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession. Rent derived from houses illegally constructed by trespassers cannot be the basis for calculating mesne profits.
Trespass to Land — Joint and Several Liability — Separate Transactions
Where defendants occupy separate portions of land acquired through separate transactions, though all arising from wrongful acts by a common party, liability for trespass is several rather than joint, as each defendant's wrongful occupation is a separate and distinct trespass.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (8)

  • Israel Kabwa v Martin Banoba Musiga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1995)
  • Addie v Dumbreck [1929] AC 358
  • Visram and Karsan v Bhatt [1965] EA 798
  • Sheik Lubowa v Kitaka Enterprises (1987) C.A. 42 (unreported)
  • Mulindwa v AG [1985] HCB 38
  • Nakabira and 2 others vs Masaka District Growers Cooperative Union
  • Minister of Health v Bellotti [1944] 1 All ER 238
  • Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Ltd [1959] 2 QB 384

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mukiibi and Another v Najjuma and 6 Others (CIVIL SUIT NO. 1005 OF 1999) [2000] UGHC 56 (31 October 2000)
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.