Sande John v Kyomukama Glorious (High Court Civil Suit Number 024 of 2022)
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 held that the plaintiff proved ownership of six pieces of land purchased from his mother through written agreements between 1995 and 2020, supported by witness testimony and actual possession. The defendant, the plaintiff's sister, failed to prove her claim that the land remained part of their deceased mother's estate. The court found the defendant to be a trespasser and ordered her eviction, awarding the plaintiff general damages of UGX 15,000,000 and a permanent injunction.
Outcome
Plaintiff declared rightful owner; defendant ordered to vacate and deliver vacant possession; permanent injunction granted
Facts
The plaintiff and defendant are siblings. Their father died and the plaintiff helped raise his siblings including the defendant. Between 1995 and 2020, the plaintiff purchased six pieces of land from their mother Mashemererwa Kellen through written agreements, taking immediate possession. The purchases were witnessed by relatives and the proceeds were used for school fees for other siblings and the mother's cancer treatment. The mother died and the defendant entered the land and cultivated it, claiming it remained part of the deceased's estate. The defendant alleged she had provided money to her mother to purchase the land and that their mother had mentioned the land in a meeting in July 2020. The plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate but she refused, claiming superior ownership.
Issues
- Whether or not the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit land.
- Whether the Defendant trespassed on the suit land.
- What remedies are available to the Parties.
Orders
- The Plaintiff is the rightful owner of the suit land.
- The defendant is a trespasser on the suit land.
- A permanent injunction is issued against the Defendant to cease interfering with the quiet enjoyment of the suit land by the Plaintiff.
- Vacant possession of the suit land should be given to the Plaintiff by the Defendant.
- General damages of UGX 15,000,000 awarded to the Plaintiff.
- Interest on general damages and costs at Bank Rate per annum.
- Costs in this suit are to be borne by the Defendant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (15)
- Dr Karuhanga Vincent v NIC & URA [2008] HCB 157
- Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
- Katumba v Kenya Airways (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2008)
- Deo Matsanga Vs Uganda 1998 KALR
- David Acar and Others v Alfred Acar (1987) HCB 60
- Yaseri Waibi v EDISA Byandala (1982) HCB 28
- Okoth Owor v Sunday Muvawala (HCCA No. 0028 of 2013)
- James Nsibambi Vs Lovisa Nankya 1980 HCB
- Omito and 5 Others v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 73 of 2004)
- Powell v McFarlane (1977) 38 P&CR 452
- Atunya Valiryano v Okeny Delphino (High Court Civil Suit No. 51 of 2017)
- Odyeki & Another v Yokonani & 4 Others (Gulu HCCA No. 9 of 2017)
- Justice EMN Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2022)
- Hall Brothers SS Co Ltd v Young [1939] 1 KB 748
- Storoms v Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.