Wakilii

Richard Kafumba v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 2 of 2002)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 1 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Constitutional application under Article 50 seeking redress for alleged violation of property rights in compulsory land acquisition for public infrastructure project
Decision
Application dismissed; government's compulsory acquisition upheld as lawful; project companies' titles confirmed as valid

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 dismissed the application, holding that where government follows statutory compulsory acquisition procedures, makes an award based on approved rates, and promptly offers compensation which the landowner refuses, the constitutional requirement of prompt, fair and adequate compensation is satisfied. Disagreement over quantum does not render the acquisition unconstitutional where the law provides an appeal mechanism which was not utilised. The project companies lawfully derived title from the government's acquisition.

Outcome

Application dismissed; government's compulsory acquisition upheld as lawful; project companies' titles confirmed as valid

Facts

Around 2000, government identified land at Bujagali for a hydroelectric power project and formally declared it required for public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act. An assessment officer valued the applicant's customary land and crops using District Land Board approved rates for 2000 and made an award including disturbance allowance. The applicant refused the compensation, believing it undervalued his property, and filed multiple complaints but did not appeal under section 13 of the Land Acquisition Act within the statutory 60-day period. Government took possession and granted interests to project companies. The applicant filed this constitutional application in 2002 seeking declarations that the acquisition violated Article 26, that respondents were trespassers, cancellation of titles, and compensation at current market value. The matter was dismissed by Namundi J in 2015 on procedural grounds, but the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court remitted it for hearing on merits.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant and all other persons whose land was compulsorily taken and other property destroyed to pave the way for the Bujagali Power Project have a right not to be compulsorily deprived of their land, crops, and other developments without payment of prompt, fair, and adequate compensation.
  2. Whether the acquisition of the land by the 1st and 2nd respondents was lawful.
  3. Whether third parties, specifically the 3rd and 4th respondents, could derive a valid title at law from a transaction arising out of such acquisition of land by the 1st respondent.
  4. What remedies are available to the applicant and others affected by the Bujagali Hydro-Electric Power Project?

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Cause No. 2 of 2002 is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Property Rights — Compulsory Acquisition — Prompt, Fair and Adequate Compensation
Article 26(2) of the Constitution prohibits compulsory deprivation of property except where the taking is necessary for a public purpose and is effected under a law which provides for prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation before taking possession, together with a right of access to court by any person with an interest in the property.
Land & Property — Compulsory Acquisition — Adequacy of Compensation — Statutory Appeal Mechanism
Where government makes a compensation award under the Land Acquisition Act based on approved rates and promptly offers payment which the landowner refuses, the constitutional requirement of prompt, fair and adequate compensation is in principle satisfied. Disagreement over the amount does not render the acquisition unconstitutional where the law provides an appeal mechanism to the High Court under section 13 which the landowner failed to utilise.
Constitutional Law — Article 50 Applications — Scope — Distinction from Statutory Appeals
An Article 50 application for enforcement of constitutional rights is not a substitute for a statutory appeal against a compensation award. Where adequate statutory remedies exist but are not pursued, a landowner cannot convert a dispute over quantum of compensation into a collateral constitutional challenge years later to reopen a completed acquisition.
Land & Property — Registered Title — Impeachment — Fraud Must Be Pleaded and Proved
A registered proprietor's title cannot be impeached except on proof of fraud brought home to that proprietor. Fraud must be specifically pleaded with particulars under Order 6 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and strictly proved. Suspicions and conclusions without concrete evidence of fraudulent conduct are insufficient to impeach a registered title.
Land & Property — Derivative Title — Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet — Lawful Acquisition
Where government lawfully acquires land through compulsory acquisition for a public purpose in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act and the Constitution, it is capable of granting leases or other proprietary interests to third parties. The maxim nemo dat quod non habet does not apply where the original acquisition was lawful.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (13)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Richard Kafumba v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 2 of 2002) [2026] UGHC 1 (5 January 2026)
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.