Wakilii

Omar Ahmed and Others v Patrick Masambu (Civil Suit No. 895 of 2017)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 230 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for eviction and damages for trespass arising from boundary encroachment
Decision
Defendant declared a trespasser and ordered to vacate the encroached portion within 90 days; damages and costs awarded to plaintiffs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 suit was not time-barred as trespass to land is a continuing tort to which the strict law of limitation does not apply. The court found that the defendant encroached on the plaintiffs' land by approximately 54 square meters based on uncontroverted survey evidence. The defendant was declared a trespasser and ordered to vacate the encroached portion within 90 days. General damages of UGX 10,000,000 were awarded.

Outcome

Defendant declared a trespasser and ordered to vacate the encroached portion within 90 days; damages and costs awarded to plaintiffs

Facts

The plaintiffs are registered proprietors of Plot 12 Young Avenue, Bugolobi. The defendant is the registered proprietor of the adjacent Plot 57A (formerly 57B) Luthuli Avenue. In November 2014, the plaintiffs commissioned a survey before constructing on their land. The survey revealed that the defendant's developments encroached on the plaintiffs' land by approximately 54 square meters. The defendant had purchased his plot in 1995 when it was already developed with a residential house, boy's quarters, and perimeter wall. The plaintiffs attempted to resolve the matter amicably but the defendant refused, insisting he had only developed his own land. The defendant claimed he had been in occupation for over 20 years without dispute with the plaintiffs' predecessor in title.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiffs' claims in the suit are barred by law?
  2. Whether the Defendant is a trespasser on the disputed portion/piece of land?
  3. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought?

Orders

  • A declaration that the defendant encroached on the plaintiffs' land approximately 54 square feet and is therefore a trespasser.
  • The defendant, his agents, servants, or any other persons claiming under him are hereby ordered to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the part of Plot 57A Luthuli Avenue encroaching on the plaintiffs' land within 90 days failure of which a notice of eviction shall issue.
  • General damages of UGX 10,000,000 at an interest rate of 10% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Limitation of Actions — Trespass to Land — Continuing Tort
Trespass to land which does not amount to recovery of land is a continuing tort, such that the law of limitation does not apply to it in the strict sense. Continuous injuries to land caused by the maintenance of tortious acts create separate causes of action barred only by the running of the statute of limitation against each successive act.
Trespass to Land — Elements of the Tort
Trespass to land occurs when a person makes an unauthorized entry upon land and thereby interferes or portends to interfere with another person's lawful possession of that land. To establish a claim in trespass, the plaintiff must show that there was an unauthorized entry upon land and interference with another person's lawful possession of the land.
Boundary Disputes — Proof of Encroachment
Trespass is premised on the unlawful crossing onto another person's land and presupposes the existence of well-established boundaries. Questions relating to overlapping boundaries are ordinarily settled by mutual agreement, demarcations on title deeds, or survey reports. A boundary dispute is to be settled on the basis of or by reference to cartographic survey maps, with the starting point being the language of the conveyance aided by the representation of the boundaries on any plan.
Adverse Possession — Pleading Requirement
Where a defendant seeks to rely on adverse possession as a defence to a trespass claim, adverse possession must be specifically pleaded. A defendant cannot be allowed to depart from his pleadings and raise adverse possession at the determination stage if it was not pleaded.
Trespass — Damages — Assessment
Trespass in all forms is actionable per se, meaning there is no need to prove that actual damage has been sustained. If the trespass has caused the plaintiff actual damage, he is entitled to receive such amount as will compensate him for his loss. If the defendant has made use of the plaintiff's land, he is entitled to receive by way of damages such a sum as would reasonably be paid for that use. The defendant's conduct is key to the amount of damages awarded: if the trespass was accidental or inadvertent, damages are lower; if wilful, damages are greater.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (13)

  • Lutaaya Justine v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Madhvani International S.A v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2004)
  • Eriyasafu v Wilberforce Kuluse (1994) III KALR 10
  • Elizabeth Sylvia Musaazi v Bwanika Rose (High Court Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2014)
  • Hope Rwajuma v Jingo Mukasa (Civil Suit No. 508 of 2012)
  • Adrabo Stanley v Madira Jimmy (Civil Suit No. 0024 of 2013)
  • Christopher Katongole v Yusuf Ssewanyana [1990-1991] KALR 41 to 43
  • Odwong Joseph Agoro and Another v Morris Latigo and Another (Civil Appeal No. 061 of 2018)
  • Laker Kereni Ogena and Another v Otto Zaire (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2019)
  • Draza Moses v Aderubo Richard (Civil Suit No. 3 of 2016)
  • Robert Cusson v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • Hajji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co Ltd (1981) HCB 35

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Omar_Ahmed_and_Others_v_Patrick_Masambu_(Civil_Suit_No._895_of_2017)_[2025]_UGHCLD_230_(3_September_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.