Sentongo v Mukono Industries (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 55 of 2012)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The court held that a beneficial owner in physical possession of land has standing to sue for trespass. Under the common law rule on trespass to land, the right to sue accrues first to the person having lawful possession, and only accrues to the person with legal possession if no other person has lawful possession. The plaintiff's averments that he was the beneficial owner and in possession of the suit land were sufficient to disclose a cause of action for trespass. The preliminary objection was overruled.

Outcome

Matter to proceed to hearing on the merits

Facts

The plaintiff claimed to be the beneficial owner of land at Kyungu-Mukono, Block 115 Plot 743, and the owner of two water tanks situated on that land with a capacity of 300 cubic metres. He alleged that the defendant, without authorization, used the water tanks for its daily business, causing him economic loss, depreciation of the tanks, and preventing him from selling the land. A search certificate annexed to the defence showed that Andrew Kizito Mbwabwa was the registered legal owner. The defendant raised a preliminary objection arguing that the plaintiff, as a beneficial but not legal owner, had no locus standi to sue for trespass.

Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff, not being the legal owner or registered proprietor, can found a cause of action in respect of alleged trespass or conversion.

Orders

• The preliminary point of law raised by counsel for the defendant is overruled.
• The suit shall be set down for hearing on the merits.
• The costs of the preliminary objection shall be in the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Registration of Titles Act s.50
• Registration of Titles Act s.59
• Registration of Titles Act s.64

Cases cited (8)

• Motokov v Auto Garage East Africa [1971] EA 541
• Israel Kaggwa v Martin Banoba Musiga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1995)
• M/s Ayigihugi & Co. Advocates v Mary Muteteri Munyakindi [1988-1990] HCB 161
• Justine E.M.N Lutaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
• Ofei v Danquah (1961) 3 All E.R. 596
• Moya Drift Farm Ltd v Theuri [1973] EA 114
• United Cultivate Co. Ltd v Uganda Properties Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1983)
• Auto Garage & Others v Motokov (No. 3) [1971] EA 514

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Teddy Nalubwama v Magala Robert and Others (Civil Suit 415 of 2011)

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