Nambajjwe and Another v Semanda (Civil Suit 666 of 2022)
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
Plaintiffs proved ownership of plots A and G allocated to them by administrators of their late father's estate. Defendant, who acquired interest only in plots H and I through a chain of transactions, unlawfully encroached on the Plaintiffs' plot G. Court declared Plaintiffs as lawful owners, declared Defendant a trespasser, ordered eviction and demolition of structures, awarded general damages of UGX 20,000,000 with 25% interest per annum, and granted a permanent injunction.
Outcome
Plaintiffs declared lawful owners of suit land; Defendant declared trespasser and ordered to vacate and demolish structures; damages and costs awarded to Plaintiffs
Facts
Plaintiffs are biological children of the late Haji Abdnoor Kakande Gava. In December 2005, estate administrators allocated plots A and G to the Plaintiffs and plots H and I to their brother Ahmed Kakande. In 2008/2009, Ahmed sold his plots to Kassaga Hassan, who in turn sold to the Defendant in August 2009. In February 2011, the Defendant began claiming ownership of land beyond what was sold to him, encroaching on the Plaintiffs' plot G and bringing construction materials. The Plaintiffs reported to local authorities, the President's office, and Buganda Land Board, but no action was taken. The Defendant filed Civil Suit 269 of 2012 for trespass against the Plaintiffs at Chief Magistrate's Court, but abandoned it. The Plaintiffs commenced this suit. The Defendant did not file a defence and the case proceeded ex parte, though he later sought and was granted leave to file a defence but failed to comply with court orders.
Issues
- Whether the Plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the suit land?
- Whether the defendant trespassed on the suit land?
- What remedies are available?
Orders
- A declaration that the Plaintiffs are the lawful owners of the suit land (Plot G).
- A declaration that Defendant is a trespasser on the suit land.
- An order for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant or any person claiming from him from trespassing on, alienating, transferring and or in any way dealing in the suit land.
- The Defendant vacates and/or is evicted from the suit land. Plot G allocated to the Plaintiffs be restored to them.
- The structures erected on the suit land be demolished.
- General damages of UGX 20,000,000 for the inconvenience caused by the Defendant with interest of 25% per annum from date of delivery of judgment until payment in full.
- Costs awarded to the Plaintiffs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
Cases cited (4)
- Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
- Justine E. M. N. Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Eng. (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
- Sheik Muhammed Lubowa versus Kitara Enterprises Ltd C.A No.4 of 198
- Ludia Mugambe v Kavita James and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 339 of 2020)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.