Wakilii

Sebuhingiriza v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 1251 of 1999)

High Court · [2012] UGHC 249 · 2012 Claim Dismissed (Special Damages); Eviction Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for vacant possession, mesne profits, and damages arising from military occupation of plaintiff's land
Decision
Plaintiff granted vacant possession; special damages claim dismissed with costs to defendant

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations fading — 4 citing cases on record, 4 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for special damages arising from alleged building materials deposited on land occupied by military forces, finding the oral evidence insufficiently cogent to meet the strict proof required for special damages. The plaintiff failed to provide documentary evidence, contradicted his pleadings on costs, and could not prove the quantity of materials or their continued presence when occupation commenced. The court granted the eviction order for vacant possession.

Outcome

Plaintiff granted vacant possession; special damages claim dismissed with costs to defendant

Facts

The plaintiff was the registered proprietor of land in Kisoro with a building used by tourists. In 1984 he allegedly accumulated building materials (120 lorry loads of sand, 50 lorry loads of soil, and 50 lorry loads of gravel stones) on the land for development purposes. In 1986 soldiers of the National Resistance Army occupied the land, and the UPDF remained in occupation to the date of judgment. The plaintiff sued for vacant possession, mesne profits, and damages. The parties entered partial consent judgment in November 2012 for mesne profits, lost rental income, and general damages. The remaining issues concerned special damages for the building materials and vacant possession.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to special damages and interest thereon as claimed.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession of the suit premises.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim for special damages dismissed.
  • Plaintiff's claim for interest dismissed.
  • Costs to the defendant on the special damages claim.
  • Eviction order granted.
  • UPDF personnel ordered to vacate the suit premises forthwith.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Special Damages — Standard of Proof — Cogency of Oral Evidence
Where a plaintiff claims special damages, oral evidence in proof thereof must be cogent; special damages are not provable only by documentary evidence, but acceptable oral evidence must nonetheless be sufficiently reliable to meet the strict proof required by law.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Strict Proof Required
A claim for special damages must be strictly proved; a party seeking special damages must establish with specificity both the existence of the loss and its quantification, and an award of special damages must be restricted to what was specifically prayed for in the pleadings.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Departure from Pleadings — Effect on Credibility
A party who departs from his pleadings and gives evidence contrary thereto would be deemed to be lying; where a plaintiff pleads specific amounts in his plaint but testifies to different amounts at trial without explanation, this departure affects the reliability of his evidence.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Balance of Probabilities in Civil Proceedings
In civil proceedings the party seeking judgment as to any legal right dependant on the existence of alleged facts bears the burden of proving those facts on a balance of probabilities; the question is whether it is more probable than not that the alleged facts existed.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (6)

  • GAPCO (U) Ltd v Transporters Ltd (2009) HCB 6
  • Gestion Economique Des Missions Catholique (GEMECA) Rwanda v Steel Rolling Mills Ltd (2008) HCB 166
  • Attorney General v Lutaaya (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2007)
  • Sebuliba v Cooperative Bank Ltd (1982) HCB 130
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Akisoferi Biteremo v Damscus Munyanda Situma (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1991)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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

↓ Download PDF

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

Sebuhingiriza v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 1251 of 1999) [2012] UGHC 249 (20 November 2012)
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.