Ssenyondo v Lyazi (Civil Appeal 47 of 2020)

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

A registered proprietor in constructive possession of land through a lessee has locus to institute an action for trespass. Where a respondent entered land with permission from a validly established lessee, and the lease agreement contained no bar to entry by third parties, no trespass is committed. A court will not determine the validity of a lease agreement in proceedings where the lessee is not a party, as doing so would violate natural justice. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; trial court judgment upholding respondent's defence to trespass claim confirmed

Facts

The appellant, registered proprietor of land at Bigasa, sued the respondent for trespass, alleging unauthorised entry and operation of a coffee and maize milling business (Bemba Factory) on the suit land in 2017. The respondent pleaded that the business belonged to his associate Semanda Dauda, with whom the appellant had executed a 30-year lease in 2011. Semanda Dauda testified as DW2, confirming he held the lease and operated the factory, and that the respondent assisted with financial support. The appellant admitted the lease but contended it was illegal because he held the land under customary tenure without a certificate of customary ownership. The trial Chief Magistrate dismissed the suit, finding the appellant could not maintain trespass because he was not in possession. The appellant appealed, arguing the trial magistrate failed to evaluate evidence, failed to find the lease illegal, and failed to find trespass proved.

Issues

1. Whether the trial magistrate erred in failing to consider and evaluate all the evidence on record.
2. Whether the trial magistrate erred in failing to find that the lease agreement between the appellant and Semanda Dauda was illegal.
3. Whether the trial magistrate erred in failing to find that the respondent and Semanda Dauda were trespassers on the suit land.
4. Whether a registered proprietor of land not in physical possession can maintain an action in trespass.
5. Whether a person with authorized entry from a lessee commits trespass against the lessor.

Orders

• The judgment and orders of the learned Trial Chief Magistrate are hereby upheld.
• The appeal is rejected and is hereby dismissed.
• The appellant shall pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Land Act Cap 227 s.4
• Land Act Cap 227 as amended by Land Amendment Act 2004 s.5
• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.103
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 as amended Art.28(1)

Cases cited (8)

• Moya Drift Farm Ltd v Theuri (1973) E.A. 114
• Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Emmanuel Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
• Uganda Revenue Authority v Rwakasanje Azariu and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2007)
• Fr. Narsensio Begumisa and 3 Others v Eric Kibebaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 08 of 1998)
• Justine E.M.N Lutaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
• Uganda v F. Ssembatya and Another [1974] HCB 278
• Sarapio Tinkamalirwe v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1989)

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.

• Lawino v Akuru (Miscellaneous Application No. 141 of 2021)

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