Wakilii

Nakato Rijcken Mubanda v Kajjansi Town Council and Wakiso District Local Government [2025] UGHC 332

High Court · 2025 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for compensation for alleged trespass and compulsory land acquisition
Decision
Suit dismissed; plaintiff's claim for compensation and declaration of trespass denied

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 dismissed the plaintiff's claim for compensation for alleged trespass and compulsory land acquisition. The court held that the plaintiff, having widened a footpath into a seven-metre road in 2008 and opened it to public use for seventeen years without prohibiting access, had dedicated the road as a public right of way. The plaintiff was estopped from denying the existence of this public right of way. The defendants, as local government authorities, lawfully entered the road to maintain it pursuant to their statutory mandate. Crops, trees, and fencing destroyed during maintenance were illegally planted within the road reserve under the Roads Act 2019 and the Roads (Road Reserves) (Declaration) Instrument SI 358-1, and the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation.

Outcome

Suit dismissed; plaintiff's claim for compensation and declaration of trespass denied

Facts

The plaintiff, registered proprietor of land comprised in Busiro Block 489 Plot 7 measuring approximately 28.5 acres at Sanda, claimed that in February 2019 the defendants trespassed on her land and constructed and expanded Sanda Road without her consent, utilizing approximately 1.185 acres. The plaintiff sought compensation totalling UGX 212,979,000 for the land taken and for destruction of crops, trees, and fencing. The defendants contended that the road had existed as a footpath and was widened by the plaintiff herself in 2008 from one metre to seven metres to facilitate construction of her house. The defendants maintained that they merely rehabilitated an existing road that had deteriorated, and that the plaintiff had acquiesced to its use as a public right of way. The court conducted a locus visit on 21 March 2025 and found the road measured six metres in width. The plaintiff admitted in testimony that she had widened the road and opened it to public use, and that she and her neighbours used it to access Sanda Trading Centre.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants trespassed on the suit land.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed.
  • Costs are issued to the defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Right of Way — Dedication by Landowner — Estoppel
A landowner who widens a footpath on her land into a motor-able road and opens it to public use for a continuous period without taking overt steps to prohibit public access is deemed to have dedicated the road as a public right of way and is estopped from subsequently denying the existence of that right of way.
Public Right of Way — Rebuttal of Presumption — Overt Acts Required
To rebut the presumption of a public right of way arising from continuous public use, a landowner must prove that she challenged the existence of the right of way in an open and notorious fashion by overt acts such as erecting barriers, posting notices forbidding public use, or closing the way periodically, such that it is clear to local residents and the public that no public right of way exists.
Local Government Powers — Road Maintenance — Statutory Mandate
Under sections 30 and 31 of the Local Governments Act Cap 243 and Part 2 paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule, district councils and lower local governments have a statutory mandate to construct, rehabilitate, and maintain roads within their jurisdiction, and may lawfully enter upon a public right of way to discharge this duty.
Road Reserves — Statutory Requirements — Wakiso District
Under the Roads (Road Reserves) (Declaration) Instrument SI 358-1 First Schedule item 1(b), all roads maintained by local governments in Wakiso District must have road reserves bounded by imaginary lines parallel to and distant fifty feet (approximately fifteen metres) from the centre line, and structures or crops planted within the road reserve without authorization are not entitled to compensation.
Road Reserves — Unauthorized Use — No Compensation
Under section 16(8) of the Roads Act 2019, a person who constructs any structure in or on a road reserve or uses a road reserve without authorization is not entitled to any compensation for the structure or use and must remove the structure or cease the use at his or her own cost.
Trespass to Land — Elements — Possession and Unlawful Entry
To succeed in an action for trespass to land, a plaintiff must prove that the disputed land belonged to the plaintiff, that the defendant entered upon it, and that the entry was unlawful or that the defendant had no claim, right, or interest in the disputed land. Where a public right of way exists over the land, the plaintiff lacks exclusive possession and cannot sustain a claim for trespass.
Right to Property — Public Right of Way — No Infringement
Where a landowner has dedicated a portion of her land as a public right of way through continuous public use over a period of years, the landowner lacks ownership of that portion for the purposes of Article 26 of the Constitution and cannot claim infringement of her proprietary rights when the local government maintains the road in accordance with statutory authority.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (11)

  • Barugahare v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
  • Tayebwa Geoffrey & Anor vs. Kagimu Ngudde Mustafa
  • Lutaaya v Sterling (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Senyange v KCCA (High Court Civil Suit No. 710 of 2017)
  • Musoke Salongo v Makindye Ssabagabo Municipal Council (High Court Civil Suit No. 458 of 2018)
  • Godmanchester Town Council vs. Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2007) UKHL 28
  • Adrabo Stanley v Madira Jimmy (High Court Civil Suit No. 24 of 2013)
  • Sheikh Mohammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1987)
  • Fairey vs. Southampton County Council [1956]2 ALL ER 853
  • Kaggwa Micheal v Apire John (High Court Civil Appeal No. 126 of 2019)
  • Asher v. Whitlock (1865) LR 1 QB 1

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakato Rijcken Mubanda v Kajjansi Town Council and Wakiso District Local Government 2025 UGHC 332 (16 May 2025)
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.