Wakilii

Soyekwo Murume & Anor v Butime & Anor (Civil Suit No. 28 of 1992)

High Court · [1993] UGHCCRD 17 · 1993 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for trespass and declaration of land ownership, heard ex parte after defendants failed to enter appearance
Decision
Plaintiffs' claim allowed; defendants jointly and severally liable for unlawful eviction; suit property restored to plaintiffs with permanent injunction and exemplary damages

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

Held that the District Administrator's eviction order was unlawful as no court case existed between the defendants and plaintiffs. The 2nd defendant lacked locus standi to execute a 1959 judgment as he was not a party and produced no letters of administration. In any event, execution 32 years later was time-barred under the Limitation Act s.4(3). The suit property was declared to belong to the plaintiffs; permanent injunction granted; exemplary damages of UGX 3 million awarded given the oppressive conduct and defiance of court process by both defendants.

Outcome

Plaintiffs' claim allowed; defendants jointly and severally liable for unlawful eviction; suit property restored to plaintiffs with permanent injunction and exemplary damages

Facts

The plaintiffs, both elderly landowners over 80 years of age, owned adjoining parcels of land in Chebany village, Kaptanya Sub-County, Kapchorwa District where they grew crops including coffee, wheat, maize and beans. In September 1992, the 1st defendant, the District Administrator, convened a meeting at which he ruled that the suit property belonged to the 2nd defendant and ordered the 1st plaintiff to vacate within 30 days. Despite letters from the plaintiffs' lawyers and the NRM Secretariat advising the 1st defendant that he was usurping court jurisdiction and that the matter was sub judice (Civil Suit No. 161/85), the 1st defendant issued an eviction order. In October 1992, the 2nd defendant, accompanied by local chiefs and RCs, entered and took possession of the suit property belonging to both plaintiffs, destroying crops and the 1st plaintiff's houses. The defendants claimed authority from a purported court warrant based on a 1959 case between the late Chemonges Chemukan (the 2nd defendant's father) and the 1st plaintiff, which had long been implemented and the boundary established. The defendants failed to enter appearance or defend the suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the 2nd defendant had ever had any court case with either the 1st or 2nd plaintiff.
  2. Whether the 2nd defendant had locus standi to execute the judgment in Civil Suit No. 113 of 1959, a case between the late Chemonges Chemukan and the 1st plaintiff.
  3. Whether execution of a judgment 32 years after it was passed was lawful under the Limitation Act.
  4. Whether both defendants were jointly and severally liable for unlawful eviction and trespass.

Orders

  • Declaration that the suit property belongs to the plaintiffs.
  • Permanent injunction restraining both defendants from trespassing on, alienating, or interfering with the plaintiffs' quiet possession of the suit property.
  • Exemplary damages of UGX 1.5 million awarded against each defendant, totalling UGX 3 million, with interest.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Ex Parte Proceedings — Effect of Failure to Enter Appearance
Where defendants are duly served with summons to enter appearance and hearing notices but fail to enter appearance or file a defence, the court may proceed to hear the suit ex parte for formal proof, and the failure to defend is deemed an acceptance of the claim or an indication that the defendants have no defence.
Execution of Judgment — Locus Standi and Time Limitation
A person who was not a party to a judgment cannot execute that judgment unless they have obtained letters of administration or probate to the estate of the original party. Even if locus standi is established, under section 4(3) of the Limitation Act (Cap. 70), execution of a judgment is time-barred after 12 years, and any warrant issued 32 years after the original judgment would be null and void.
Administrative Officers — Usurpation of Judicial Functions
A District Administrator or any administrative officer has no power to adjudicate land disputes or issue eviction orders in respect of matters within the jurisdiction of the courts. Such acts constitute an unlawful usurpation of judicial functions and render the officer personally liable for the consequences.
Trespass to Land — Actionability Per Se
Trespass to land is actionable per se, meaning that proof of actual damage is not required to establish liability. However, where actual damage is proven, including eviction, destruction of crops, and deprivation of use of land, general damages will be awarded commensurate with the harm suffered.
Exemplary Damages — Oppressive and Unconstitutional Conduct by Government Servants
Exemplary or punitive damages may be awarded in rare cases where a government servant's conduct is oppressive, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, and where the defendant's conduct is calculated to make unjustifiable profit. Such an award is appropriate where defendants also demonstrate arrogant and obstinate defiance of court process, including ignoring temporary injunctions.
Injunctions — Permanent Injunction to Prevent Repeated Trespass
A permanent injunction will be granted to protect a plaintiff from repeated unlawful interference with their land where the defendant has shown an unrelenting desire to grab the land using unscrupulous or extrajudicial means, so as to prevent the plaintiff from having to institute fresh suits on each occasion.
Declarations of Ownership — Effect of Failure to Contest
Where defendants fail to enter appearance and defend a claim for a declaration of ownership of land, the court will declare ownership in favour of the plaintiffs, and the defendants will be estopped from trespassing, alienating, or interfering with the plaintiffs' quiet possession of the property unless and until the defendants prove that ownership is vested in them.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (2)

  • Rookes v Bernard [1964] AC 1129
  • Charles Katende v Attorney General (1974) ULR 264

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Soyekwo Murume & Anor v Butime & Anor (Civil Suit No. 28 of 1992) [1993] UGHCCRD 17 (12 May 1993)
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.