Mutazindwa & 3 Others v Mushana (Civil Suit 78 of 2019)
Observed later treatment
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 purchaser of kibanja interests who enters upon registered land without obtaining the written consent of the registered proprietor is a trespasser, notwithstanding that the kibanja interests were purchased before the current proprietor acquired title. Section 34(9) of the Land Act invalidates any transaction undertaken without landlord consent, and such consent is mandatory not optional. The transferee bears the burden of proving that consent was obtained. Judgment for plaintiffs: defendant declared trespasser and ordered to vacate.
Outcome
Defendant declared trespasser, ordered to vacate within three months, permanent injunction granted, damages and costs awarded to plaintiffs
Facts
The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of Kyadondo Block 213 Plot 28. In 2009, the defendant purchased kibanja interests from four occupants when a different person was the registered proprietor. The defendant constructed developments including a washing bay and parking yard. In 2011 the defendant poured murram on the land. The plaintiffs purchased the land in 2012 and were registered as proprietors on 8 October 2012. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant was a trespasser because he never obtained the written consent of the landlord (neither the former nor the current registered proprietor) before acquiring the kibanja interests and occupying the land. The defendant admitted in cross-examination that he did not seek landlord consent and believed it was not necessary.
Issues
- Whether the defendant is a trespasser on the plaintiffs' land comprised in Kyadondo Block 213 Plot 28 at Bukoto.
- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the remedies sought.
Orders
- Declaration that the defendant is a trespasser on land comprised in Block 213 Plot 28 land at Bukoto.
- The defendant is hereby ordered to vacate the suit property and give vacant possession to the plaintiffs within 3 months from the date of this judgment.
- An order of a permanent injunction is hereby issued restraining the defendant, his agents and servants from further acts of trespass.
- The plaintiffs are awarded general damages in the sum of UGX 40,000,000 payable by the defendant. The said sum shall carry an interest at 10% per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full.
- The plaintiffs are awarded costs of the suit.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
Cases cited (14)
- David Byatike Matovu v Richard Kikonyogo (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2014)
- Steven Mulerangabo v Esther Allen Natocho & Others (HCCA No. 79 of 2012)
- Justin EMN Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Co Ltd
- Adrabo Stanley v Madira Jimmy (HCCS No. 24 of 2013)
- Nalubega Edisa & Another v Kivumbi David & 3 Others (Civil Suit No. HCT-00-LD-CS-0176-2019)
- Ponsiano Katamba v Cotilda Nakirijja (Civil Appeal No. 169 of 2017)
- Justine EMN Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Co (SCCA No. 11 of 2002)
- Sheikh Muhammad Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1987)
- [1978] HCB 307
- Muluta Joseph v Katama Sylvano (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1999)
- Tifu Lukwago v Samwiri Mudde Kizza & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1996)
- Owembabazi Enid v Guaranty Trust Bank Limited & Others (Civil Suit No. 63 of 2019)
- Charles Acire v Myaana Engola (HCCS No. 143 of 1993)
- Adrabo v Madira (Civil Suit No. 24 of 2013)
Cases citing this judgment (2)
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.