Wakilii

Opecprime Properties Limited Another v Attorney General (Civil Suit 479 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 1 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of settlement agreement arising from a Public Private Partnership
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiffs; Defendant ordered to perform Settlement Agreement obligations and pay damages

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 found that the Attorney General breached the Settlement Agreement dated 17 September 2021 by failing to reinstate titles for developed plots measuring 15.629 acres in the Nakawa-Naguru Satellite City to the Plaintiffs. The court ordered specific performance compelling the Defendant to transfer the titles, awarded general damages of UGX 800 million and punitive damages of UGX 200 million, and granted a permanent injunction against further interference with the properties.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiffs; Defendant ordered to perform Settlement Agreement obligations and pay damages

Facts

In 2007, the Plaintiffs and Defendant entered a Public Private Partnership Agreement to develop Nakawa-Naguru Satellite City. Disputes arose and in 2018 the Plaintiffs obtained court orders restraining eviction. On 17 September 2021, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement requiring the Defendant to reinstate titles for developed portions measuring approximately 15.629 acres (including Plots 12-30 Naguru Boulevard, 26-44 Naguru Avenue, 1-10 Eureka Close, and other specified plots) to the Plaintiffs for onward transfer to third-party developers. The Plaintiffs withdrew Miscellaneous Cause No. 41 of 2018 by consent. Despite the agreement, the Defendant's officials at the Ministry of Lands and Uganda Land Commission failed to transfer the titles and allegedly allocated portions of the land to other parties including Karim Somani and Roko Construction Ltd. A locus visit confirmed that Plaintiffs remained in possession of some plots but held no title deeds, and other portions had been allocated away.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant breached the terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 17th September 2021?
  2. Whether the parties are entitled to any remedies?

Orders

  • Declaration that the Defendant breached the Settlement Agreement dated 17th September 2021.
  • Order of specific performance requiring the Defendant to reinstate the titles in Schedule A of the Settlement Agreement in the names of the Plaintiffs, who shall in turn register the properties in the names of the respective third parties.
  • Permanent injunction granted against the Defendant from further breach of the Settlement Agreement and interference with the Plaintiffs' occupation and utilization of plots in Appendix A.
  • General damages awarded to the Plaintiffs in the sum of UGX 800,000,000.
  • Punitive damages awarded to the Plaintiffs in the sum of UGX 200,000,000.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiffs.
  • Prayers for orders of mandamus and prohibition dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction — Commercial Division — Breach of Settlement Agreement
The Commercial Division has jurisdiction over suits for breach of settlement agreements arising from relationships of a commercial or business nature, even where the subject matter involves land, provided the claim is for enforcement of contractual rights rather than enforcement of interests in land.
Pleadings — Striking Out — Evasive and General Denials
A written statement of defence that contains evasive and general denials without specifically addressing each allegation of fact in the plaint is bad in law and liable to be struck out under Order 6 Rules 8, 10, and 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as each party must traverse specifically each allegation of fact which he does not intend to admit.
Breach of Contract — Definition and Elements
Breach of contract occurs when a party fails without legal excuse or justification to perform an obligation stated in the contract, including circumstances where an obligation is not completed on time, and this failure violates the agreed-upon terms and conditions of a binding contract.
Specific Performance — Availability and Exceptions
Where a party to a contract is in breach, the other party may obtain an order from the court under Section 64 of the Contracts Act requiring the party in breach to specifically perform his or her promise under the contract, subject to the exceptions set out in Section 64(2) of the Act.
Locus in Quo — Purpose and Use of Evidence
A locus in quo visit aims to ascertain or confirm facts claimed by the parties and must be limited to inspection of specific aspects canvassed during oral testimony; the court does not take fresh evidence at the locus but obtains clarifications on evidence taken in court, and findings at the locus can substantially assist decision-making where the dispute turns on physical factual assertions.
Damages — General Damages for Breach of Contract
The purpose of general damages for breach of contract is to place the party that suffered loss by reason of the breach in the same position he or she would have been in had the contract been properly performed, and as a general rule, a breach of contract entitles the injured party to an award of general damages.
Damages — Punitive/Exemplary Damages for Breach
Punitive or exemplary damages in cases of breach of contract are generally awardable only where the breach involves a tort in the course of or in relation to the breach; they are awarded to punish egregious, highhanded, malicious, vindictive, or oppressive conduct, including improper interference by public officials with the rights of ordinary subjects.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (11)

  • Lancaster v Blackwell Colliery Co Ltd (1918 WC Rep 345)
  • Sebuliba v Cooperative Bank Ltd [1982] HCB 130
  • Etoma Francis v Alex Agandru and 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 0007 of 2011)
  • Meridiana African Airlines (U) Ltd v Avma Spares (EA) Ltd (HCCS No. 111 of 2017)
  • Kabaco (U) Ltd v Turyahikayo Bonny (HCCS No. 0014 of 2021)
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 542 of 2006)
  • Bale & Two Others v Okumu (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2005)
  • Opio Simon Ongiera v Onyai Furasika (HCCA No. 39 of 2014)
  • Bank of Uganda v Fred Masaba & 5 Others (SCCA No. 03 of 1998)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Wanume David Kitamirike (CACA No. 43 of 2010)
  • Uganda Development v Muganga Constructions [1981] HCB 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Opecprime Properties Limited Another v Attorney General (Civil Suit 479 of 2022) 2025 UGCommC 1 (20 January 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.