Tabu Lee Deforest & Anor v Gulu Municipal Council (Civil Suit No. 044 of 2011)

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

Held that plaintiffs constructed a perimeter wall that intruded twelve metres into the Toya Kilama Road reserve, a planned road since the 1990s. Plaintiffs had constructive notice of the road reserve as the planning scheme was available for inspection for over sixty-five years. The demolition notice issued under the Physical Planning Act 2010 s.46 was procedurally compliant. No compensation is payable where a building was erected without permission after declaration of a planning area. Suit dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Outcome

Suit dismissed; plaintiffs not entitled to any remedies sought

Facts

The first plaintiff purchased a plot in Gulu Municipality in 2006 and surrendered it to the second plaintiff, who constructed a residential house. After paying fees to the municipal authorities in July 2011, the second plaintiff constructed a perimeter wall around the plot. In October 2011 and June 2012, the defendant issued demolition notices on grounds that part of the wall encroached onto Toya Kilama Road, a planned road since the 1990s with a twenty-metre reserve. The second plaintiff sought an injunction but the application was dismissed. The defendant demolished part of the wall in February 2013. Plaintiffs sued for damages for wrongful deprivation of land and demolition. At the locus in quo, the court established that twelve metres of the perimeter wall had protruded into the planned road reserve.

Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs illegally constructed the perimeter wall fence on Toya Kilama Road.
2. Whether the notice of demolition of the perimeter wall fence was lawfully issued to the plaintiffs.
3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

• Suit dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (23)

• Town and Country Planning Act 1951 Cap 246 s.1 First Schedule item 1
• Land Act s.37(5)
• Physical Planning Act 2010 s.61(4)
• Physical Planning Act 2010 s.46
• Physical Planning Act 2010 s.46(4)
• Physical Planning Act 2010 s.55(4)
• Physical Planning Act 2010 s.47(2)
• Local Governments Act Cap 243 Second Schedule Part 2 item 4
• Local Governments Act Cap 243 Second Schedule Part 4 item 20
• Local Governments Act Cap 243 Second Schedule Part 5(B) item 21
• Roads Act Cap 358 s.2
• Roads Act Cap 358 s.3
• Roads Act Cap 358 s.4
• Roads (Road Reserves) (Declaration) Instrument S.I 358-1 First Schedule item 3(e)
• Roads (Road Reserves) (Declaration) Instrument S.I 358-1 Second Schedule item 2(d)
• Town and Country Planning Regulations S.I 246-1 reg.2(1)
• Town and Country Planning Regulations S.I 246-1 reg.2(4)
• Town and Country Planning Regulations S.I 246-1 reg.5(1)
• Public Health (Building) Rules S.I 281-1 reg.36(1)
• Public Health (Building) Rules S.I 281-1 reg.36(2)
• Public Health Act s.66
• Public Health Act s.66(3)
• Public Health Act s.66(4)

Cases cited (4)

• Hunt v Luck (1901) 1 Ch 45
• Turner v Ringwood Highway Board [1870] LR 9 Eq 418
• Regina v Pratt (1855) 4 E B 860
• Nabro Properties Ltd v Sky Structures Ltd & 2 Others [2002] 2 KLR 299

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.

• Nalwoga v Bagaaliwo (Civil Appeal No. 084 of 2012)

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