Wakilii

Sekabanja v Bukenya and 5 Others (Civil Suit No. 867 of 2017)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 234 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for trespass and vacant possession
Decision
Defendants declared trespassers and ordered to vacate within 60 days; plaintiff awarded damages and costs

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 court held that kibanja purchase agreements executed without the consent of the registered mailo land owner are null and void under section 35(9) of the Land Act. The defendants failed to obtain the plaintiff's consent before purchasing kibanja interests, rendering all transactions unlawful and conferring no protectable interests. The tenant who assigns kibanja interests without giving the landlord first option forfeits his rights and the land reverts to the registered owner under section 36(2). The defendants were declared trespassers and ordered to vacate the land.

Outcome

Defendants declared trespassers and ordered to vacate within 60 days; plaintiff awarded damages and costs

Facts

The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of land comprised in Busiro Block 287 Plots 6 and 7. The late Dezederiyo Musoke held a kibanja interest on Plot 6. In November 2016, the 1st defendant purchased the kibanja from the late Dezederiyo without obtaining the plaintiff's consent. In September 2017, the 1st defendant sold the same kibanja to the 2nd and 3rd defendants, again without the plaintiff's consent. The 3rd defendant subsequently sold part of the land to the 6th defendant, who commenced construction despite being served with an interim order. The 4th and 5th defendants were witnesses to the initial sale and are children of the late Dezederiyo. The plaintiff discovered the trespass in 2019 when construction began and demanded the defendants vacate, but they refused, claiming lawful occupancy.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendants' agreements of purchase are lawful?
  2. Whether the Defendants lawfully acquired protectable interests on the suit land?
  3. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • A declaration that the Defendants are trespassers and are in unlawful occupation of the suit land.
  • The Defendants are hereby ordered to vacate the suit land and give vacant possession to the Plaintiff within a period of 60 days from the date this judgment.
  • An order of a permanent injunction is hereby issued restraining the Defendants, their agents and servants from any further acts of trespass on the Plaintiff's land.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 30,000,000 (Uganda Shillings Thirty Million Only) payable in equal share by all the Defendants (Each Defendant to pay UGX 5,000,000).
  • The Plaintiff is awarded costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Kibanja Tenure — Sale of Kibanja — Requirement of Landlord's Consent
A tenant by occupancy or kibanja holder may assign or transfer his interests only with the consent of the registered mailo land owner as required by section 35(1) of the Land Act Cap 236.
Kibanja Tenure — Validity of Transfer Without Consent
Any transaction for the sale or assignment of a kibanja executed without the consent of the registered land owner is null and void and passes no interest in land under section 35(9) of the Land Act.
Kibanja Tenure — Procedure for Obtaining Consent
The procedure for obtaining consent requires the seller to introduce the buyer to the mailo land owner or the owner's agent, and the buyer must give a gift (kanzu) to the owner, whereupon the buyer is recognized as the new kibanja holder.
Kibanja Tenure — Forfeiture for Unlawful Assignment
A tenant by occupancy who assigns the tenancy without giving the landlord the first option to take the assignment commits an offence, the transaction is invalid, and the tenant forfeits the right over the land which reverts to the registered owner under section 36(2) of the Land Act.
Certificate of Title — Conclusive Evidence of Ownership
A certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership of land under section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act and is indefeasible except in cases of fraud and other limited instances listed in section 176.
Trespass to Land — Definition and Elements
Trespass to land occurs when a person makes an unauthorised entry upon land and thereby interferes or portends to interfere with another person's lawful possession of land.
Trespass to Land — Assessment of General Damages
In assessing general damages for trespass, the court considers the conduct of the defendant; if the trespass was wilful or accompanied by contempt of court orders, higher damages are warranted than for inadvertent trespass.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (12)

  • George Tuhirirwa v Carolina Rwamuhanda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2007)
  • Stephen Mubiri and Another v Twaha Semakula alias Kali Smart and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 1068 of 2020)
  • Justine E.M. Lutaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Owembabazi Enid v Guarantee Trust Bank Limited (Civil Suit No. 63 of 2019)
  • Kasifa Namusisi and Others v Francis M.K Ntabaazi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2004)
  • Tifu Lukwago v Samwiri Mudde Kizza and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1996)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Wanume David Kitamire (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2010)
  • Charles Acire v Myaana Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Adrabo v Madira (Civil Suit No. 0024 of 2013)
  • Takiya Kashwahira and Another v Kajungu Denis (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Lydia Mugambe v Kayita James and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 339 of 2020)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] HCB 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sekabanja_v_Bukenya_and_5_Others_(Civil_Suit_No._867_of_2017)_[2025]_UGHCLD_234_(29_August_2025)
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.