Wakilii

Sekajja and Others v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause 71 of 2021)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 16 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Human rights enforcement application by residents evicted from land claimed by government entities
Decision
Application allowed with declarations of constitutional violations and orders for payment of special and general damages with interest

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 407 former residents of Kasenyi Village were bona fide occupants lawfully on land acquired by government and that their forcible eviction without court order, hearing, or prompt compensation violated multiple constitutional rights including fair treatment, property, livelihood, housing, and cultural rights. The court awarded special damages totalling UGX 4,757,551,930 and general damages of UGX 1,000,000 per person.

Outcome

Application allowed with declarations of constitutional violations and orders for payment of special and general damages with interest

Facts

Applicants and other residents had occupied land at Kasenyi Village, Lwampanga Sub-County, Nakasongola District since the 1970s for agriculture, shelter, schools, places of worship, and burial grounds. The land was purchased by government in 1999 and registered to Uganda Land Commission for use by National Enterprise Corporation and Luweero Industries Ltd. In 2014, after a verification exercise that recorded only 397 homesteads, UPDF soldiers deployed to the area and the Resident District Commissioner announced over radio that residents had three days to vacate. Residents were forced to leave without court order, hearing, compensation, or alternative accommodation. A presidential directive for ex-gratia payment was issued in 2019 but not implemented. Graduated Tax Tickets from 1988–1990 established occupation predating government acquisition.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is properly before court?
  2. Whether the Applicants have a cause of action against the Respondents?
  3. Whether the named rights of the Applicants were violated by the Respondents?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Declaration that the acts by the Respondents' agents and/or servants in evicting the Applicants from the suit land violated their fundamental human rights and freedoms, namely; the right to fair and just treatment; the right to property, the right to adequate standard of living; the right to life and livelihood and the rights to culture under the respective provisions of the Constitution of Uganda.
  • The Respondents, jointly and severally, shall pay the total sum of UGX 4,757,551,930/= payable by way of the sums respectively assessed in favour of each person as special damages.
  • The Respondents shall pay the sum of UGX 1,000,000/= to each subject person as general damages.
  • Interest on special damages at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • Interest on general damages at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment.
  • Costs of the application to the Applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Standing and Procedure — Representative Actions — Human Rights Enforcement Act 2019
In matters concerning enforcement of human rights, a party does not have to be appointed by the court as a representative under Order 1 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules in order to bring a suit on behalf of another or as a member of, or in the interest of a group or class of persons, as the Human Rights Enforcement Act 2019 provides its own more encompassing provisions regarding procedure.
Human Rights — Human Rights Enforcement Act 2019 — Technicalities — Section 5(6)
No suit instituted under the Human Rights Enforcement Act 2019 shall be rejected or otherwise dismissed by the competent court merely for failure to comply with any procedure, form or on any technicality.
Land & Property — Bona Fide Occupants — Definition and Status Under Land Act
Under Section 29(2)(a) of the Land Act, a bona fide occupant includes a person who before the coming into force of the 1995 Constitution had occupied and utilised or developed any land unchallenged by the registered owner or agent of the registered owner for twelve years or more, and any person who has purchased or otherwise acquired the interest of such a person shall be taken to be a bona fide occupant.
Constitutional Law — Right to Fair Hearing — Administrative Bodies — Eviction Without Notice
Article 42 of the Constitution requires that any person appearing before any administrative official or body shall be treated fairly and justly. A verbal announcement over radio giving occupants three days to vacate land is unreasonable notice in terms of form and time and constitutes a violation of the right to fair and just treatment.
Land & Property — Eviction — Lawful or Bona Fide Occupants — Land Act s.32A(1)
Under Section 32A(1) of the Land (Amendment) Act No. 1 of 2010, a lawful or bona fide occupant shall not be evicted from registered land except upon an order of eviction issued by a court and only for non-payment of the nominal annual ground rent.
Constitutional Law — Right to Property — Compulsory Acquisition — Article 26(2)
Article 26(2) of the Constitution provides that no person shall be compulsorily deprived of property except where the taking is necessary for public use or defence and is made under a law providing for prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation prior to taking possession and a right of access to court. Forcible eviction without court order or prompt compensation violates the right to property.
Human Rights — Right to Livelihood — Right to Life — Articles 8A and 45
The right to livelihood, though not expressly provided for in the Constitution, is justiciable by virtue of Articles 8A and 45 which recognize rights and freedoms not expressly provided for. The right to livelihood which derives from the broader right to life encompasses means of livelihood and there is an obligation on the state to secure persons' means of livelihood and their right to work.

Legislation cited (44)

Cases cited (16)

  • Paul Kanyima v R. Rugoora per pro Kicumbi Barista Kweterana Society [1982] HCB 33
  • Abdu Ochaki & 98 Ors v British American Tobacco Uganda (High Court Civil Suit No. 39 of 2013)
  • Tororo Cement Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2001)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov No. 3 [1971] EA 51
  • Kapeeka Coffee Works Ltd v NPART (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • Hon. Elijah Okupa v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 14 of 2005)
  • Attorney General v Salvatori Abuki and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v Tanzanite Corporation [2005] 2 EA 331
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1894) 9 Exch 341
  • Charles Acire v M. Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank. Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Butterworth v Butterworth & Englefield [1920] P 126
  • Rookes v Barnard [1946] ALLER 367
  • Obongo v Kisumu Municipal Council [1971] EA 91
  • Fredrick J.K. Zabwe v Orient Bank & Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sekajja and Others v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause 71 of 2021) [2024] UGHCCD 16 (19 January 2024)
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.