Wakilii

Pius Mugerwa Mugalaasi v Attorney General of Uganda and Uganda National Roads Authority [2025] UGHC 281

High Court · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for compensation arising from compulsory land acquisition for public infrastructure project
Decision
Plaintiff's suit succeeded with declarations, compensation awards, punitive damages, general damages, interest, and costs. Defendants ordered to de-gazette unutilised portions of the originally acquired land.

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 court held that the defendants compulsorily acquired 1.26 acres of the plaintiff's land for the Kampala-Entebbe expressway without prompt compensation, violating Article 26 of the Constitution. Rock deposits cannot be valued separately from land but must be considered in determining market value. The plaintiff was awarded compensation for the 1.26 acres actually utilised, plus compensation for non-use of the entire gazetted land for 11 years, disturbance allowance, punitive damages for the government's high-handed conduct, and general damages. The remainder of the originally gazetted land must be de-gazetted and returned.

Outcome

Plaintiff's suit succeeded with declarations, compensation awards, punitive damages, general damages, interest, and costs. Defendants ordered to de-gazette unutilised portions of the originally acquired land.

Facts

The plaintiff owned land in Busiro Block 347 comprising seven plots at Nalumunye with a stone quarry operated through Omega Construction Ltd. In 2012, the 2nd defendant's surveyors entered the land and placed pegs for the proposed Kampala-Entebbe expressway. The land was gazetted in 2013 via Statutory Instrument 2013 No. 7. The Chief Government Valuer assessed compensation at UGX 17,424,744,427, which the plaintiff accepted and signed for in February 2015. Memoranda of understanding were executed with the plaintiff's mortgagee banks for release of titles. However, the 2nd defendant subsequently redesigned the road alignment, reducing the affected area to 1.26 acres across plots 2580, 2582, and 2684. The defendants did not pay the agreed compensation, did not de-gazette the unutilised land, and the 3rd party contractor entered the land, blasted rocks, and constructed the road. The plaintiff's quarry business ceased, equipment was damaged or abandoned, and he could not service his mortgage obligations.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant compulsorily acquired the plaintiff's land.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for rock separate from compensation for land.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for only rock affected.
  4. Whether the 2nd defendant is entitled to indemnity and or contribution from the 3rd party for part of the plaintiff's claims in the 3rd party notice.
  5. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Declaration that the plaintiff's entire land comprised of 6 plots was compulsorily acquired but only 1.26 acres was utilized.
  • Order for degazettement of the plaintiff's land which was not utilized by the defendants.
  • Declaration that the plaintiff is not entitled to compensation of the rock separately from the land acquired.
  • Declaration that plaintiff is entitled to compensation of the rock affected together with the affected land as a whole.
  • Declaration that the 2nd defendant is not entitled to indemnity/compensation from the 3rd defendant.
  • Declaration that the 1st and 2nd defendants infringed on the plaintiff's rights.
  • Plaintiff awarded punitive damages of UGX 100,000,000.
  • Plaintiff awarded UGX 2,613,711,664 as compensation for non-use of his land and closure of a quarry business.
  • Plaintiff awarded UGX 655,200,000 being compensation for land measuring 1.26 acres which was acquired and utilized by the defendant.
  • Plaintiff awarded UGX 196,560,000 as disturbance allowance.
  • General damages allowed at UGX 100,000,000.
  • Interest of 15% granted on general damages from the date of judgment and 15% on punitive damages and compensation from the date of filing.
  • Costs granted to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Compulsory Acquisition — Article 26 — Prompt Payment of Fair and Adequate Compensation
Article 26(2)(b) of the Constitution requires prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation prior to taking possession of compulsorily acquired property. Where government gazetted land for a public purpose, valued it, obtained the owner's acceptance of the valuation, but failed to pay compensation before taking possession and utilising the land, there is a violation of the constitutional right to property.
Land & Property — Compulsory Acquisition — Withdrawal from Acquisition — Section 8 Land Acquisition Act
Under Section 8 of the Land Acquisition Act, government may withdraw from the process of compulsorily acquiring land for a public purpose provided that the assessment officer has not yet taken possession. Once government agents have taken physical control of the land and placed marks, and the land remains gazetted, government cannot lawfully withdraw without de-gazetting and surrendering the land.
Land & Property — Valuation — Rock Deposits — Valuation as Part of Land
Rock deposits should not be valued separately from the land as they are part and parcel of the land. It is erroneous to accept a valuation based solely on estimated tonnage of rock that may be exploited or mined from the land. However, in determining the market value of land, the existence of rock deposits must be taken into consideration as a factor affecting value.
Damages & Quantum — Compensation — Non-Use of Land — Gazettement Without Utilisation
Where government gazetted land for compulsory acquisition but subsequently redesigned the project and utilised only a portion of the gazetted land, the landowner is entitled to compensation for the period during which he was denied use of the entire gazetted area, even though the unutilised portion was not physically taken. Compensation may be calculated as a percentage of the originally assessed value for the period of deprivation.
Damages & Quantum — Punitive Damages — High-Handed Conduct by Public Officials
Punitive damages are awardable for egregious, high-handed, oppressive, or malicious conduct by public officials, including improper interference with the rights of ordinary subjects. Where government compulsorily acquired land, obtained the owner's acceptance of a valuation, but failed to pay compensation for over ten years while utilising the land and entering into agreements with third parties based on the subject matter, such conduct warrants an award of punitive damages.
Land & Property — Road Reserve — Acquisition for Public Purpose
Where land is acquired for the purpose of constructing a road that did not previously exist, the acquiring authority cannot claim that it acquired land only for the road surface and not for the statutory road reserve. The land acquired and to be compensated includes the road reserve, as the reserve forms part of the land required for the public purpose.
Evidence — Expert Opinion — Valuation Reports — Caution and Scrutiny
While courts must give proper respect to expert opinion, such opinions are not binding on the court. Expert evidence must be considered along with all other available evidence, and if the court finds a proper and cogent basis for rejecting the expert opinion, it is entitled to do so. A convincing expert opinion is one that is supported with logical reasons, as required by Section 49 of the Evidence Act.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (12)

  • Attorney General v Etot Paul Peter and 8 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 144 of 2018)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Wanume David Kitamirike (Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2010)
  • C. D de'Souza versus BR Sharma (1954) 21 EACA 384
  • Christopher Bamweyana v Herman Byanguye (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2017)
  • Kimani versus Republic (2000) E.A 417
  • Hadley v. Baxendale (1894) 9 Exch 341
  • Charles Acire v M. Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Stephen Mabosi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1996)
  • Harbutt's Plasticine Ltd vs Wyne Tank & Pump Co. Ltd [1970] 1 Ch 447
  • Jennifer Rwanyindo Aurelia and Another v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1999)
  • National Pharmacy Ltd. vs. Kampala City Council [1979] HCB 25

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Pius Mugerwa Mugalaasi v Attorney General of Uganda and Uganda National Roads Authority 2025 UGHC 281 (30 April 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.