Wakilii

Nyarinkindi and 2 Others v New Forst Company Limited and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 409 of 2008)

High Court · [2021] UGHCLD 131 · 2021 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for trespass, eviction, and damages arising from alleged unlawful entry onto registered leasehold land
Decision
Plaintiffs' claim dismissed; registered title declared null and void due to illegality

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 Land Division held that a leasehold title issued by Uganda Land Commission over land forming part of a gazetted Central Forest Reserve was obtained illegally and is null and void ab initio. The court found that the suit land fell within the boundaries of Namwasa Central Forest Reserve, which had never been degazetted, and that the Uganda Land Commission had no authority to lease land held in trust as a forest reserve. The illegality rendered the plaintiffs' registered title indefeasible and the suit was dismissed with costs to the defendants.

Outcome

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed; registered title declared null and void due to illegality

Facts

The plaintiffs claimed to be registered proprietors of leasehold land comprised in LRV 1644 folio 69 plot 9 Kikandwa estate, Mubende, having purchased it in January 2004 from Gerald Mayombwe. The original lease had been granted by Uganda Land Commission in 1988 to Anictus Mayombwe Muganywa for 44 years. In 2005, the first defendant (New Forst Company Limited) entered the land under a tree planting license issued by the National Forest Authority and erected roads and graded portions of the land. The plaintiffs sued for trespass, eviction, and damages. Survey evidence and witness testimony established that the suit land fell entirely within the boundaries of Namwasa Central Forest Reserve, which had been gazetted in 1968 under SI No. 176 of 1968 and had never been degazetted or excised. The plaintiffs admitted they had not physically opened the boundaries before purchase.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiffs who are the registered proprietors of land comprised in LRV 1644 folio 69 plot 9 Kikandwa estate, Mubende are lawfully holding title in respect of the suit land.
  2. Whether the third party lawfully issued a tree planting license over land comprised in LRV 1644 folio 69 plot 9 Kikandwa estate, Mubende.
  3. Whether the Defendant is entitled to indemnity/contribution from the third party.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Forest Reserves — Leases Issued Over Gazetted Forest Land — Illegality
A leasehold title issued by Uganda Land Commission over land forming part of a gazetted Central Forest Reserve that has never been degazetted is illegal and null and void ab initio, notwithstanding registration under the Registration of Titles Act.
Administrative Law — Ultra Vires Acts — Uganda Land Commission — Authority to Lease Trust Land
Uganda Land Commission has no authority to issue leases over land held in trust as a Central Forest Reserve where that land has not been lawfully degazetted or excised from the reserve.
Land & Property — Indefeasibility of Title — Exceptions — Illegality
The principle of indefeasibility of title under Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act does not protect a registered proprietor where the title was obtained through an illegal transaction; illegality overrides all questions of pleadings and admissions and renders the transaction null and void ab initio.
Statutory Interpretation — Degazettement of Forest Reserves — Requirement of Express Instrument
A Central Forest Reserve gazetted by statutory instrument remains a forest reserve under the law until expressly degazetted by a subsequent statutory instrument; the absence of evidence of degazettement means the reserve continues in force.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (8)

  • Drabo Stanley v Jimmy Madiral (HCCS No. 24 of 2013)
  • National Forest Authority v Muhereza Basaliza William & Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2019)
  • Mugerwa Evaristo Kafeero v National Forest Authority (HCCS No. 005 of 2008)
  • Duncan Turyatunga Rujojo & Others v The Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2017)
  • Sinba(K) Ltd & Others v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2014)
  • Matovu & Others v Sseviri & Anor (Court of Appeal No. 007 of 1978)
  • Kyaggwe Coffee Curing Estates Ltd & Anor v Emmanuel Lukwajju (Court of Appeal No. 187 of 2014)
  • Makula International Ltd versus Cardinal Emmanuel Nsubuga Wamala

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nyarinkindi_and_2_Others_v_New_Forst_Company_Limited_and_2_Others_(Civil_Suit_No._409_of_2008)_[2021]_UGHCLD_131_(12_August_2021)
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.