Wakilii

Namagembe Margaret V Serene Hotel Limited (Serene Suites Limited) (Civil Suit No. 318 of 2012)

High Court · [2014] UGHCLD 144 · 2014 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for trespass to land
Decision
Suit allowed; Defendant found liable for trespass and ordered to vacate the suit land; damages and costs awarded to Plaintiff with interest.

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

Held that a registered proprietor holding a certificate of title has legal possession of land by virtue of Registration of Titles Act s.56 and can sue in trespass even where another person is in physical occupation. Where a trespass results in damage to the reversionary interest, the landowner has capacity to sue. The Defendant's construction of part of its hotel, a perimeter wall, and an access road on the Plaintiff's registered land without her consent, but with alleged permission of occupants, constitutes continuous trespass affecting the Plaintiff's reversionary interest and entitles her to general and special damages.

Outcome

Suit allowed; Defendant found liable for trespass and ordered to vacate the suit land; damages and costs awarded to Plaintiff with interest.

Facts

The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of land comprised in Kibuga Block 32 Plot 39, Mutundwe II Zone LC1, Rubaga Division. The Defendant owns adjacent Plot 37 and operates a hotel. The Defendant constructed part of its hotel building, a perimeter wall, and an access road onto the Plaintiff's land. The Defendant claimed it acted with permission of Marion Kabaale Munyangwa and Fred Munyangwa, whom it believed to be bona fide occupants of the Plaintiff's land. The Plaintiff denied that these persons had authority to grant such permission. A surveyor commissioned by the Plaintiff confirmed that the Defendant's structures encroached onto the suit land. Neither the Defendant nor its counsel appeared at the hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action.
  2. Whether in building the perimeter wall fence, it was lawful for the Defendant to deal with Marion Kabaale Munyangwa and Fred Munyangwa.
  3. Whether the Defendant has committed any acts of trespass onto the suit land.
  4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the plaint.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Defendant has committed trespass onto the suit land.
  • The Defendant shall forthwith vacate the suit land.
  • Special damages awarded to the Plaintiff in the sum of UGX 2,800,000.
  • General damages awarded to the Plaintiff in the sum of UGX 20,000,000 for trespass.
  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff's full costs of the suit.
  • The special damages award shall attract interest at 10% per annum from the date of suit until payment in full.
  • The general damages and costs awards shall attract interest at 6% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Trespass — Locus Standi — Registered Proprietor's Right to Sue
A person holding a certificate of title has, by virtue of that title, legal possession of the land and can sue in trespass even in the absence of physical possession. In the absence of any other person having lawful possession, legal possession is vested in the holder of a certificate of title to the land.
Land & Property — Trespass — Reversionary Interest — Locus Standi of Landowner
Where a trespass results in damage to the reversionary interest of the landowner, the landowner has capacity to sue in respect of that damage, even where a lessee or other occupant is in physical possession of the land.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Essential Elements
A cause of action is disclosed if three essential elements are pleaded: the existence of the Plaintiff's right, the violation of that right, and the Defendant's liability for that violation. A reasonable cause of action means a cause of action with some chance of success when the allegations are examined.
Land & Property — Trespass — Permission from Occupant — Registered Proprietor's Rights
An alleged occupant's permission to enter and use land cannot defeat the registered proprietor's right to sue in trespass where the occupant has not adduced convincing evidence of lawful occupation and there is no evidence that the nature of the occupant's interest entitled them to deal with the land to the exclusion of the registered proprietor.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Proof — Oral Testimony
Special damages specifically pleaded may be proved by oral testimony of the person who received payment. There is nothing sacrosanct in a receipt; a sworn witness statement is sufficient proof of special damages where the witness testifies to the payment received.
Damages & Quantum — Mesne Profits — Entitlement — Proof of Loss
Mesne profits should be a measure of loss of rentals or awarded in lieu of ascertained profitable use of the land by the owner who is denied such benefits by wrongful occupation. Where there is no evidence that the plaintiff was using the land before the trespass, a claim for mesne profits is not justified.
Damages & Quantum — Exemplary Damages — Entitlement — Outrageous Conduct
Exemplary damages are not justified where the defendant's occupation and use of land, though wrong in law, was based on a belief that permission had been obtained from persons in occupation and there is nothing outrageous in the defendant's conduct or evidence of acting with impunity.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (14)

  • Khatibu bin Mamadi v Issaji Nurbhai (4 ZLR 55)
  • Justine EMN Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Co Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • General David Tinyefuza v Attorney General of Uganda (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • [1970] 1 All ER 1094
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • [1971] EA 514
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd. vs Frokina International Ltd.
  • Mulindwa Birimumaso v Government Central Purchasing Corporation (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2002)
  • [1959] EA 53
  • [1973] EA 114
  • [1979] HCB 15
  • Cooke vs Gull LR 8 E.P. at page 116
  • Read vs Brown 22 QBD at p.31
  • [1936] 5 EACA 18

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Namagembe Margaret V Serene Hotel Limited (Serene Suites Limited) (Civil Suit No. 318 of 2012) [2014] UGHCLD 144 (8 November 2014)
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.