Wakilii

Mulhubira v Ambitious Construction Company Limited (Civil Suit No. 10 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 268 · 2022 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for trespass and damages
Decision
Defendant found liable for trespass; ordered to remove excavated material; permanent injunction granted; plaintiff awarded UGX 55,000,000 total damages plus interest and costs

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 a defendant who, without authority, deposits excavated construction material on a plaintiff's registered land commits actionable trespass per se, even where the defendant claims consent. Where documentary evidence shows agreements with other landowners but none with the plaintiff, and the defendant fails to remove the material for over twenty months, the court may order immediate removal, award general damages for loss of use, and award exemplary damages to punish the wrongful conduct.

Outcome

Defendant found liable for trespass; ordered to remove excavated material; permanent injunction granted; plaintiff awarded UGX 55,000,000 total damages plus interest and costs

Facts

The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of land in Kasese district. In March 2021, the defendant, a construction company contracted by government to build a border post, deposited excavated soil containing stones, broken glass and murram on the plaintiff's land without his consent. The defendant claimed that several locals, including the plaintiff, had requested the soil for levelling their land and that deposit was halted by the district environment officer before levelling was completed. The defendant produced written agreements with other landowners for similar deposits but no agreement with the plaintiff. The plaintiff testified that he was growing crops on the land and intended to construct an arcade, having obtained a building plan approved in November 2020. The deposited material remained on the land for approximately twenty months, preventing the plaintiff from using it for his intended purposes.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant trespassed on the plaintiff's land
  2. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • The defendant shall forthwith remove all the excavated material it deposited on the suit land.
  • A permanent injunction is issued to restrain the defendant from committing any further acts of trespass on the suit land.
  • The plaintiff is awarded general damages in the sum of UGX 50,000,000.
  • The plaintiff is awarded exemplary damages in the sum of UGX 5,000,000.
  • Interest on general and exemplary damages is allowed at 8% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Trespass to Land — Elements of the Tort
To establish trespass to land, a plaintiff must prove: (a) possession of the land at the time of entry; (b) unauthorised entry by the defendant; and (c) damage occasioned by the entry. Trespass is actionable per se and the plaintiff need not prove damage.
Trespass to Land — Placing Objects on Land Without Authority
A person who projects or places any object upon land in the possession of another without permission commits trespass, regardless of whether physical entry onto the land occurs.
Trespass to Land — Defendant's Assertion of Consent
Where a defendant asserts that the plaintiff consented to the deposit of material on the plaintiff's land but produces documentary evidence of agreements with other landowners while having no documentary or credible evidence of an agreement with the plaintiff, the court will find that no consent existed and that trespass occurred.
General Damages — Assessment for Trespass
In assessing general damages for trespass, courts are guided by the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience suffered, and the nature and extent of the injury. Where a plaintiff loses use of his land for approximately twenty months due to the defendant's wrongful deposit of material, general damages are awarded to compensate for the loss of use during that period.
Exemplary Damages — Grounds for Award
Exemplary damages are awarded to punish the defendant and act as a deterrent, not to compensate the plaintiff. Where a defendant, after being notified of wrongful conduct, takes no steps to remedy the situation for an extended period, exemplary damages may be awarded to punish such unwarranted behaviour.
Remedies for Trespass — Order for Removal of Material
Where a defendant deposits unwanted material on a plaintiff's land without authority, the court may order the defendant to remove all such material with immediate effect as a remedy, rather than awarding monetary compensation for the cost of removal.
Interest on Damages — Rate and Commencement
Interest on general and exemplary damages runs from the date of judgment until payment in full. Courts determine a just and reasonable rate taking into account inflation and currency depreciation, but must balance this against avoiding excessive rates.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (12)

  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 13 of 1993)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
  • Charles Acire v M Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Kanji Naran Patel v Noor Essa [1965] 1 EA 484
  • Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129
  • Obongo v Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] EA 91
  • Harbutt's Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank and Pump Co Ltd [1970] QB 447
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 234 of 2011)
  • Kinyera v Management Committee of Laroo Boarding Primary School (High Court Civil Suit No. 99 of 2013)
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (No 2) [1970] EA 469

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mulhubira v Ambitious Construction Company Limited (Civil Suit No. 10 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 268 (25 November 2022)
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.