Open Bible Standard Churches of Uganda V Samuel Egessa (Civil Suit No. 004 of 2010)
Observed later treatment
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
A former general overseer of a church organization who was terminated by board resolution was ordered to return specific items of church property, including motor vehicles and a trimmer machine, where no board resolution authorized their gift to him. The court found the plaintiff church entitled to vacant possession of a grinding mill and awarded special damages for unpaid electricity bills and general damages for retention of property. The defendant's counterclaim for UGX 261,500,000 in personal contributions to church projects failed for lack of strict proof and absence of written authorization for reimbursement.
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeded in part on the main claim; defendant's counterclaim dismissed
Facts
Open Bible Standard Churches of Uganda, a company limited by guarantee, terminated Samuel Egessa as general overseer on 18 October 2007 by board resolution. Egessa was requested to hand over all church property. He conducted a formal handover on 29 October and 13 December 2007, handing over 46 land deeds, 120 churches, and the title deed for a grinding mill in Bugiri. However, he retained two motor vehicles (UAE 743F and UAC 505D), a trimmer machine, and graduation gowns. Egessa claimed the vehicles were gifted to him by American donors as appreciation for his service. The plaintiff sought return of these items, vacant possession of the grinding mill, payment of electricity arrears, and damages. Egessa counterclaimed UGX 261,500,000 for personal contributions to church construction projects. A memorandum of understanding signed in August 2008 provided that Egessa would compute his claims and present them for reconciliation, but he never followed that procedure.
Issues
- Whether the defendant is in unlawful occupation, control or possession of the plaintiff's churches, projects or property.
- Whether the defendant should hand over the plaintiff's property in his control or possession.
- Whether the plaintiff is indebted to the defendant in the amount of UGX 261,500,000.
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- An order that the plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession of the grinding mill in Bugiri.
- An order that the defendant returns to the plaintiff a trimmer machine for cutting paper.
- An order that the defendant returns motor vehicle registration No. UAE 743F and motor cycle Yamaha registration No. UAC 505D and all their official documentation including the log/registration books.
- An order that the defendant pays to the plaintiff UGX 3,315,849 for the outstanding electricity bill in respect of the grinding mill in Bugiri.
- The defendant pays to the plaintiff general damages of UGX 10,000,000.
- Interest on general damages at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of this suit until payment in full.
- The counterclaim is dismissed.
- Plaintiffs awarded one half of the costs of the suit, and the full costs of the counterclaim.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
Cases cited (8)
- Real Gaba Market Property Owner v KCCA (High Court Civil Suit No. 248 of 2008)
- Uganda Telecom Ltd v Tanzanite Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2004)
- Rosemary Nalwadda v Uganda Aids Commission (High Court Civil Suit No. 67 of 2011)
- Trail v Bowker, (1947) 14 EACA 20
- Patel and Amin (1955) 11 EACA 1 258
- Moses Ssali v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 86 of 2010)
- Uganda Commercial Bank Vs Deo Kigozi 2002 EA 293
- Rashid Moledina Vrs Hoima Ginners Ltd (1967) EA 645
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.