Rukidi & Others v Kyobhuhooro Katanga (Civil Suit 46 of 2007)
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
Held that the extent of the Defendant's customary holding was limited to the enclosed and fenced portion of land originally given to her late husband, measuring approximately four to five acres. The Defendant trespassed on the Plaintiff's land by constructing an unauthorised access road through the Plaintiff's farm. The caveat lodged by the Defendant claiming one hundred acres on the Plaintiff's registered land was ordered vacated as the Defendant had no legitimate interest beyond her enclosed area.
Outcome
Defendant's possession limited to enclosed area; trespass declared; caveat ordered vacated
Facts
The late Prince John Barigye (Plaintiff) was the registered proprietor of land comprised in Kashari Block 6 Plots 9, 10 and 35. The late Arthur Katanga, husband of the Defendant, had been a temporary occupant on part of this land, given to him by the Plaintiff's father. The Defendant's late husband occupied an enclosed and fenced area measuring approximately four to five acres containing a house and banana plantation. In 1990, the Defendant requested to move to a new site near the Plaintiff's homestead for security reasons, which was granted. The Defendant later refused to relinquish the old homestead. The Defendant subsequently constructed an unauthorised access road through the Plaintiff's farm, introduced goats and cattle onto the Plaintiff's land, and lodged a caveat claiming one hundred acres on the Plaintiff's registered title. The Plaintiff brought suit for trespass and malicious damage to property. Following the death of Prince John Barigye in 2011, his executors continued prosecution of the case.
Issues
- What was the extent of the Defendant's customary holding?
- Whether the Defendant has trespassed onto the Plaintiff's land?
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff.
- The Defendant is to retain and limit her possession to the area enclosed or fenced off on Plot 35 Block 16 Kashari County, Ankole District.
- The Defendant is declared a trespasser on the new road she constructed through the Plaintiff's land.
- The Defendant is ordered to immediately vacate the caveat vide instrument no. MBR 15223 lodged on Plot 35 Block 16 Kashari County, Ankole District.
- Each party shall bear their own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- Evidence Act s.100
- Evidence Act s.105
- Registration of Title Act s.142
- Civil Procedure Act s.27(2)
Cases cited (5)
- Besigye Kiiza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and Another (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
- Justine E.M.N. Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
- Herbert vs Thomas (1835) 1C.M & R. 861
- Jones vs Chapman (1847) 2 Ex. 803
- Boyes vs Gathure [1969] EA 385
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.