Wakilii

Mulondo v Namara and Another (Civil Suit 184 of 2017)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 271 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for trespass, access road obstruction, and encroachment on land
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff with declarations, orders for demolition of encroaching wall, permanent injunction, and damages awarded

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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 defendants' closure of the plaintiff's access road to Kyadondo Block 262 Plot 1190 from 2013 to 2021 was illegal and unlawful, and that the defendants trespassed on the plaintiff's land by erecting a perimeter wall that encroached 1.64 metres on the right hand end and 1.92 metres on the left hand end of the plot. The court ordered demolition of the encroaching wall portions, issued a permanent injunction against further blockages, and awarded general damages of 30 million shillings and punitive damages of 20 million shillings.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff with declarations, orders for demolition of encroaching wall, permanent injunction, and damages awarded

Facts

In 2011, the plaintiff purchased Kyadondo Block 262 Plot 1190 at Makindye with access via a road from the main Salama-Munyonyo road. In 2013, the defendants erected gates across this access road and dug a water channel in the access area without the plaintiff's consent, preventing him from delivering building materials or accessing his plot. The defendants claimed they created the access road and erected the gates for security purposes. The defendants' perimeter wall also encroached on the plaintiff's land by 1.64 metres at the right end and 1.92 metres at the left end. The plaintiff was denied access from 2013 until 2021 when KCCA ordered removal of the gates. Evidence from a surveyor and local authorities confirmed the access road predated the plaintiff's purchase, served multiple plots, and was unlawfully blocked by the defendants. The plaintiff filled the water channel in 2018 with assistance from local authorities and police.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendants' closure of the access road to the Plaintiff's land comprised in Kyadondo Block 262 Plot 1190 was unlawful and/or illegal.
  2. Whether the Defendants trespassed on part of the Plaintiff's land comprised in Kyadondo Block 262 Plot 1190.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Defendants' closure of the Plaintiff's access road to Kyadondo Block 226 Plot 1190 was illegal and unlawful.
  • Declaration that the wall fence on the Defendants' land encroached on the Plaintiff's land in commission of the tort of trespass.
  • Order for the parts of the Defendants' wall which encroach on the Plaintiff's land to be demolished at the Defendants' cost under the supervision of local authorities/police.
  • Order that the demolition process should cater for the drainage of water between the plots to allow free flow with costs for the drainage construction shared by the parties.
  • Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants or any person claiming under them from any further trespass on Plaintiff's land.
  • General damages of UGX 30,000,000 awarded to the Plaintiff.
  • Punitive damages of UGX 20,000,000 awarded to the Plaintiff.
  • Interest at court rate awarded on general damages from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Right of Way — Access Roads — Unlawful Obstruction
Where an access road existed before subdivision of land and was intended to serve multiple plots, the owner of one plot has no right to unilaterally block that access road by erecting gates without the consent of other plot owners who depend on it for access to their properties.
Trespass to Land — Elements of the Tort
To prove trespass to land, a plaintiff must establish that the disputed land belongs to him, that the defendant entered upon that land, and that the entry was unlawful in that it was made without the plaintiff's permission or that the defendant had no claim, right, or interest in the land.
Trespass — Encroachment by Perimeter Wall
Where a surveyor's report establishes that a defendant's perimeter wall encroaches on a plaintiff's registered plot by measurable distances and no contrary evidence is adduced to challenge the survey's accuracy, the court will find trespass proved and order demolition of the encroaching portions.
Permanent Injunctions — Grant of Remedy
A permanent injunction is granted as a remedy against an infringement or violation which has been proven at trial to prevent ongoing or future infringement. Where defendants have a history of erecting gates to block access roads despite removal by authorities, a permanent injunction against future blockages is appropriate.
Damages — Punitive or Exemplary Damages — High-Handed Conduct
Punitive damages are awarded where the conduct of the defendant was high-handed, insolent, vindictive or malicious and in disregard of the plaintiff's rights. Where defendants block an access road serving multiple properties from 2013 to 2021 despite intervention by local authorities and offer only conditional access through keys, refusing to respect the rights of others, such conduct justifies punitive damages.
Mesne Profits — Wrongful Possession as Prerequisite
A claim for mesne profits requires that the defendant was in wrongful possession of the plaintiff's property and actually derived profits from it. Where a defendant merely blocked access to the plaintiff's land or trespassed on it by encroachment but was not in wrongful possession deriving profit, mesne profits are not recoverable.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (8)

  • Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 4 of 1987)
  • Akena Christopher and Others v Opwonya Noah (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2016)
  • Damara Agro Processing Co. Limited and Others v Nathan Tabahikiza (Civil Appeal No. 101 of 2014)
  • Elliott v Boynton [1924] Ch 236 (CA)
  • Mukasa v Wambedde and 4 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 459 of 1998)
  • Busiro Coffee Farmers & Dealers Ltd v Kayongo and 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 532 of 1992)
  • Omunyokol Akol Johnson v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2012)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Mulondo_v_Namara_and_Another_(Civil_Suit_184_of_2017)_[2023]_UGHCLD_271_(23_August_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.