Rugari v Amin Tejan (Civil Suit No. 025 of 2016)

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.

Holding

The High Court held that a person who occupies property vested in the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board without its authority is a trespasser, even where the former owner's repossession application was rejected. The court granted eviction and a permanent injunction, awarded general damages of UGX 100 million for economic loss, but declined mesne profits where no evidence of the property's annual value was adduced.

Outcome

Defendant found to be a trespasser and ordered evicted. Plaintiff granted permanent injunction and general damages.

Facts

The suit property was vested in the Government of Uganda under the Assets of Departed Asians Act and managed by the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (DAPCB). The former owner's 1983 repossession application was rejected in 1992 for non-compliance. On 20 October 2015, DAPCB allocated the property to the plaintiff, who paid six months' rent in advance totalling UGX 1,600,000. When the plaintiff attempted to take possession, the defendant, who was in occupation, violently resisted. The defendant did not file a defence after being served with summons. The plaintiff sought a declaration of trespass, eviction, permanent injunction, mesne profits, and general damages.

Issues

1. Whether the defendant is a trespasser on the suit property.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies prayed for.

Orders

• Declaration that the defendant is a trespasser on the suit property.
• Order of eviction issued against the defendant.
• Permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, workers, and anyone claiming under him from interfering with the plaintiff's quiet enjoyment of the suit property or dealing with the suit property.
• General damages of UGX 100,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
• Interest on general damages at 25% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
• Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
• Prayer for mesne profits refused for want of evidence.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Assets of Departed Asians Act Cap 83 s.3
• Assets of Departed Asians Act Cap 83 s.2
• Assets of Departed Asians Act Cap 83 s.4
• Assets of Departed Asians Act Cap 83 s.6
• Expropriated Properties Act Cap 87 s.2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 r.10
• Civil Procedure Act s.2(m)
• Civil Procedure Act s.27(2)

Cases cited (10)

• Justine Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
• Sheik Mohammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (High Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1987)
• George Kasedde Mukasa v Emmanuel Wambedde and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 459 of 1998)
• Paul Kalule v Losira Nonozi [1974] HCB 202
• Elliott v Boynton [1924] 1 Ch 236 (CA)
• Clifton Securities Ltd v Huntley & Others [1948] 2 All ER 283
• James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 13 of 1993)
• Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
• Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
• Jennifer Rwanyindo Aurelia & Another v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1999)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Kaggwa v Apire (Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2023)
• Naggayi v Lwanga (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2019)

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