Mulika v Mahomed (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1949)
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
A mukopi (peasant) holder of a kibanja (plot) on mailo land cannot be evicted without a court order for good and sufficient cause. If evicted, the mukopi is entitled to compensation for crops and improvements. These rights are not affected by any change of ownership of the mailo land or subsequent grants to third parties. The respondent's uprooting of the appellant's vegetables without a court order was wrongful and entitled the appellant to damages.
Outcome
Matter remitted to High Court for assessment of damages
Facts
The appellant was a mukopi (peasant) holder of a kibanja (plot) on mailo land belonging to the Kabaka of Buganda. He was let into occupation by the Kabaka's local representative and planted vegetables on the land. Subsequently, on 27 August 1948, the Treasurer of Nkuluze, on behalf of the Kabaka, entered into a written agreement with the respondent granting him the right to use the same land for brickmaking for six months commencing 1 September 1948, for a rent of Sh. 300. This agreement was made after the appellant had already entered and planted vegetables. The respondent then caused the appellant's vegetables to be uprooted. The appellant claimed damages for the uprooting. The trial judge found these facts but dismissed the claim.
Issues
- Whether a mukopi holder of a kibanja on mailo land can be evicted without a court order.
- Whether the mukopi is entitled to compensation for crops and improvements when evicted.
- Whether the mukopi's rights are affected by a subsequent grant of use of the land to another person.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Judgment of the lower Court set aside.
- Case remitted to the lower Court for assessment of damages payable by the respondent to the appellant.
- Costs awarded to the appellant in the Court of Appeal and in the Court below.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- Busulu and Envujjo Law 1927 s.11
- Busulu and Envujjo Law 1927 s.13
- Busulu and Envujjo Law 1927 s.15
- Busulu and Envujjo Law 1927 s.15a
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.