Wakilii

Nina v Ssewagudde (Civil Suit 2316 of 2016)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 315 · 2022 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of land and declaration of trespass
Decision
Suit dismissed; Defendant's occupation of the suit land as contractual tenant upheld

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 the Defendant was not a trespasser on the suit land. The Plaintiff, having received rental payments under the 2013 tenancy agreement executed by her sister Juliet Galiwango, was estopped from challenging its validity under the doctrine of approbation and reprobation. The Defendant occupied the land as a contractual tenant from 2013 until suit institution. The Plaintiff failed to prove the third element of trespass—that the Defendant's entry was unlawful. Suit dismissed with costs to the Defendant.

Outcome

Suit dismissed; Defendant's occupation of the suit land as contractual tenant upheld

Facts

The Plaintiff, a beneficiary of the estate of the late Mary Wango, sued the Defendant for recovery of land at Kazo-Lugoba, Wakiso District, alleging trespass. Mary Wango had sold part of her land to the Defendant in 2000 and rented the remaining portion (the suit land) to the Defendant under a tenancy agreement dated 20 May 2009 for two years. After Mary Wango's death in March 2012, the Defendant continued occupying the land. In March 2013, the Plaintiff's sister Juliet Galiwango, without letters of administration, executed a fresh tenancy agreement with the Defendant, revising the rent from UGX 3,000,000 to UGX 5,000,000 per term. The Plaintiff received her share of the rental payments (UGX 550,000 per term) on multiple occasions and acknowledged receipt in writing. The Plaintiff later challenged the validity of the 2013 agreement and claimed the Defendant was a trespasser. The Defendant contended she was a lawful tenant and had constructed a perimeter wall with the family's consent.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant is a trespasser on the suit land.
  2. Whether the tenancy agreement of 5 March 2013 between Juliet Galiwango and the Defendant over the suit land was lawful.
  3. Whether the Defendant acted in breach of the tenancy agreement dated 5 March 2013 between Juliet Galiwango and the Defendant.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's suit is dismissed for lack of merit.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the Defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Trespass to Land — Elements of Proof
To prove trespass to land, a plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) that the disputed land belonged to him or her; (2) that the defendant had entered upon that land; and (3) that the entry was unlawful in that it was made without the plaintiff's permission or that the defendant had no claim of right or interest in the land.
Tenancy at Sufferance — Status of Tenant After Expiration of Tenancy
A tenant who remains in possession of land after expiration of a tenancy agreement without statutory authority and without obtaining the consent of the person then entitled becomes a tenant at sufferance. The tenant at sufferance is deemed to have a right to possession continuing on the same terms as the original tenancy until possession is duly and properly wrested by the landlord or reversioner.
Trespass — Tenant Becoming Trespasser After Expiration of Tenancy
A tenant who remains in possession after expiration of a tenancy does not automatically become a trespasser. The tenant becomes a trespasser only if he or she remains in possession against the will of the rightful owner and does something adverse to the title of the rightful owner, such as refusing to pay rent and challenging the owner's entitlement to the property.
Approbation and Reprobation — Estoppel from Challenging Validity of Agreement
A person cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Where a party has elected to treat a transaction as valid and obtained a benefit on the footing that it is valid, that party is estopped from later challenging the validity of the transaction for the purpose of securing some other advantage.
Tenancy Agreement — Validity Where Executed Without Letters of Administration
Where a beneficiary of an estate receives rental payments under a tenancy agreement executed by another beneficiary without letters of administration, and acknowledges receipt of those payments, the beneficiary is estopped from challenging the validity of the tenancy agreement on the ground of lack of authority.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (11)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Uganda Petroleum Co. Ltd v Kampala City Council (Civil Suit No. 250 of 2005)
  • Justine E.M.N Lutaaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Sheik Muhammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1987)
  • Joy Tumushabe & Anor v M/S Anglo African Ltd & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1999)
  • Komakech Sam & Others v Ayya Corina (High Court Civil Appeal No. 0028 of 2016)
  • African Petroleum versus Owodunni (1991) 8 NWLR (pt.210) p.391
  • Golf View Inn (U) Ltd v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 358 of 2009)
  • Verschures Creameries, Limited versus Hull & Netherlands Steamship Company, Limited (1921) 2 KB at Pg. 612
  • Remon versus City of London Real Property Company Limited [1921] 1 KB 49 at 58
  • Havinder Jhass Singh v Rosemary Asea & Anor (High Court Civil Appeal No. 0008 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nina_v_Ssewagudde_(Civil_Suit_2316_of_2016)_[2022]_UGHCLD_315_(10_November_2022)
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.