Rweme and Another v Koojo and another (HCT-01-LD-CA 4 of 2023)
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 allowed the appeal, reversing the trial magistrate's dismissal on limitation grounds. The court held that in trespass claims the limitation period runs from when the trespass occurs, not when title is acquired. On the merits, the court found that the late Rwema Stephen lawfully acquired 13 acres in 1991 from George Ruharuza, who had previously purchased it in 1984. The appellants proved on the balance of probabilities that the land formed part of Rwema Stephen's estate and the respondents were trespassers.
Outcome
Appeal allowed with declarations of ownership and trespass; Respondents ordered to vacate within 3 months; permanent injunction issued; general damages and costs awarded to Appellants
Facts
The appellants, as administrators of the estate of the late Rwema Stephen, claimed 13 acres of land in Butiti Sub County. Rwema Stephen purchased the land in 1991 from George Ruharuza for UGX 350,000. Ruharuza had acquired 3 acres from John Kalya and 10 acres from Mugisa Richard in 1984. After purchase, Rwema Stephen allowed his mother Joyce to use the land until her death in 1995. The respondents entered the land around 2007 claiming customary inheritance from their respective fathers (Nyakahuma Stephen and Mugisa Richard). The trial magistrate dismissed the claim as time-barred, finding the cause of action arose in 2007 but suit was filed in 2014. The appellants argued trespass is a continuing tort not barred by limitation.
Issues
- Whether the trial magistrate erred in holding that the plaintiffs' claim was time barred
- Whether the suit land forms part of the estate of the late Rwema Stephen
- Whether the defendants are trespassers on the suit land
- What remedies are available to the parties
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Declaration granted that the suit land forms part of the estate of the late Rwema Stephen
- Declaration granted that the Respondents are trespassers on the suit land
- Respondents ordered to vacate the suit land within 3 months, with eviction order to issue upon default
- Permanent injunction issued restraining the Respondents, their agents or successors from further trespassing on the suit land
- General damages of UGX 2,000,000 awarded to the Appellants
- Costs of the suit awarded to the Appellants
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (12)
Cases cited (12)
- Justine Lutaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
- Father Nanensio Begumisa & 3 others v Eric Tiberaga (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2000)
- Uganda Breweries v Uganda Railways Corporation 2002 E.A
- Odyek Alex & Another v Gena Yokonani (Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2017)
- Kasoya Justine & Another v William Kaija & 3 others (Civil Suit No. 6 of 2015)
- Uganda Revenue Authority Vs Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (1997-2001) UCL 149
- Francis Nansio Michael Vs Nuwa Walakira (1993) VI KALR 14
- Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 ALL ER 272
- Bwambale Mbale Henry & Another v Baluku Simon & 2 others (High Court Civil Appeal No. 018 of 2020)
- Ayesiga Suluman v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 0294 of 2015)
- Premchandra Shenoi & Another v Maximov Oleg Prevovich (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2003)
- Monarch s.s. Co. V Karlshanusoli efabriker (1949) AC, 196
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.