Wakilii

Teefe Paul v Gasitafas Kakaire and Others (Civil Suit 49 of 2007)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 66 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of land, declaration of trespass, eviction order, permanent injunction and general damages
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with declaration of ownership, eviction order, permanent injunction, general damages of UGX 200,000,000 with interest, and costs. Defendants' counterclaim dismissed and their expired certificate of title cancelled.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 4 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 4 citing cases on record, 4 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 the plaintiff lawfully acquired a 49-year leasehold title to Plots 1-3 and 5, Bugweri Avenue, Busembatia Town, Iganga District after the defendants' lease expired in March 2000 and was not renewed. The defendants, who remained in occupation after lease expiry, were tenants at sufferance with no legal claim to the land. The court found no fraud in the plaintiff's acquisition, dismissed the defendants' counterclaim, declared the defendants trespassers, and awarded the plaintiff UGX 200,000,000 in general damages, an eviction order, and a permanent injunction.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with declaration of ownership, eviction order, permanent injunction, general damages of UGX 200,000,000 with interest, and costs. Defendants' counterclaim dismissed and their expired certificate of title cancelled.

Facts

The plaintiff applied for and was granted a 49-year lease over Plots 1-3 and 5, Bugweri Avenue, Busembatia Town, Iganga District by Iganga District Land Board on 7 March 2005, receiving a Certificate of Title on 1 May 2005. The defendants and five others had jointly purchased the same property from the Departed Asians' Properties Custodian Board in 1997 for UGX 12,000,000. Their lease was extended for 2 years, 4 months and 22 days from 29 October 1997, expiring in March 2000. The defendants did not renew the lease. When the plaintiff sought vacant possession, five of the eight former lessees accepted goodwill compensation of UGX 2,000,000 each and vacated. The three defendants refused to vacate and remained in occupation. The Inspector General of Government investigated the defendants' fraud allegations and found the plaintiff had lawfully acquired the lease and the defendants had no legal claim as their lease had expired.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the suit land?
  2. Whether the defendants trespassed on the suit land?
  3. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • Declaration issued that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit property comprised in Plots 1-3 and 5, Bugweri Avenue, Busembatia Town, Iganga District measuring 0.345 hectares in Busembatya Township Folio 8 Volume 335.
  • Declaration that the defendants are trespassers on the plaintiff's land.
  • Plaintiff declared a lawful purchaser for value of the suit property.
  • Counter claim made by the defendants dismissed.
  • Permanent injunction issued to restrain the defendants, their agents and/or servants from forcefully occupying or using the suit premises for their various businesses, vandalizing, carrying out any slightest form of constructions and alterations of the physical plan of the suit property, harassing, intimidating and/or in any other way of interrupting the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of the suit premises.
  • Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff general damages of UGX 200,000,000 for the loss occasioned by their illegal occupation of the suit land.
  • Interest on general damages awarded at court rate from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Leasehold Certificate of Title issued to the defendants which has long expired is hereby cancelled and a consequential order issued to the Commissioner Land Registration Jinja/Iganga Zonal Area for the rectification of the title by removing the same.

Rules and key headnotes

Leasehold — Expiry of Lease — Reversion to Lessor — Tenant at Sufferance
Upon expiry of a lease, the land reverts to the lessor, and a lessee who remains in occupation after the lease term has expired but before the lessor demands vacation is a tenant at sufferance who acquires no interest in the land and may be evicted without notice.
Registration of Titles — Certificate of Title — Conclusive Evidence of Ownership
A certificate of title issued under the Registration of Titles Act is conclusive evidence that the person named in the certificate as proprietor is seized or possessed of the estate or interest described, and no certificate shall be impeached by reason of any informality or irregularity in the application or proceedings previous to registration.
Fraud — Burden of Proof — Standard Higher than Balance of Probabilities
Fraud must be particularly pleaded with particulars stated on the face of the pleading. The standard of proof in fraud cases is heavier than the balance of probabilities generally applied in civil matters, though not beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. Fraud must be attributable to the transferee either directly or by necessary implication.
Joint Tenancy — Sale by Some Joint Tenants — Effect on Co-Tenants
Where two or more persons are registered as joint proprietors of land under the Registration of Titles Act, they are deemed to be entitled to the land as joint tenants. Each joint tenant is equally and wholly entitled to the whole estate. A purported sale by some but not all joint tenants without the consent of the others does not bind the non-consenting co-tenants where the joint tenancy subsists.
Trespass to Land — Elements — Unauthorized Entry and Interference
Trespass to land occurs when a person makes an unauthorized entry upon land and thereby interferes or portends to interfere with another person's lawful possession of that land. To succeed in a claim of trespass, a plaintiff must prove that the disputed land belonged to the plaintiff, that the defendant entered upon it, and that the entry was unlawful in that it was made without permission or that the defendant had no claim, right or interest in the disputed land.
Expropriated Properties — Lease Extension — Time Begins Running from Registration
Under the Expropriated Properties Act, where property was expropriated from departed Asians, the lease period stops running until the property is dealt with by the Minister of Finance. Time begins to run for the lease when the Minister issues a repossession certificate and the purchaser is registered as proprietor. Extensions under the Act are limited to two years or the unexpired period of the lease, whichever is applicable.

Legislation cited (25)

Cases cited (45)

  • Dr. Vincent Karuhanga t/a Friends Polyclinic v National Insurance Corporation & Uganda Revenue Authority (HCCS No. 617 of 2002)
  • Takiya Kaswahili & Another v Kajungu Denis (CACA No. 85 of 2011)
  • Miller v Minister of Pension [1947] All ER 373
  • Sebuliba v Co-operative Bank (1982) HCB 129
  • Havinder v Asea & Another (Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2016)
  • Justine E.M.N. Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Wuta-Ofei v Danquah (1961) 3 All ER 596
  • Ocean Estates Ltd v Pinder [1969] 2 AC 19
  • Bumbakali v Muhairwe & Others (Civil Suit No. 36 of 1999)
  • Sheikh Muhammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (CA No. 4 of 1987)
  • John Katarikawe v William Katwiremu [1977] HCB 210
  • Ojwang v Wilson Bagonza (CACA No. 25 of 2002)
  • Jaffa Brothers Ltd v Muhamad Majid Bagalaaliwo and Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1947)
  • Makula International v His Eminence Cardinal Wamala Nsubuga (1981) HCB 13
  • Morgan Musisi Kiwanuka v Asia Chand (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2002)
  • Burton v Camden LBC (2002) 2 AC 399
  • John Katarikawe & Another [1977] HCB 172
  • Betty Kizito v David Kizito Kanonya & Others (SCCA No. 8 of 2018)
  • Livingstone M. Sewanyana v Martin Aliker (SCCA No. 40 of 1991/1992)
  • FJK Zaabwe v Orient Bank & 5 Others (SCCA No. 4 of 2006)
  • David Sejjaaka v Rebecca Musoke (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1985)
  • Edward Gatsinzi and Mukasanga Ritah v Lwanga Steven (Civil Suit No. 690 of 2004)
  • Bugembe Kagwa Segujja vs Steven Eriaku & Alvin Ssetuba Kato
  • Sebuliba v Coop Bank Ltd (1987) HCB 130
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (CA No. 22 of 1992)
  • Ntege Mayambala v Christopher Mwanje (CA No. 72 of 1993)
  • Hajji Abdu Nasser Katende v Vithalidas Haridas & Co. Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2003)
  • Hannington Njuki v William Nyanzi (HCCS No. 434 of 1996)
  • Holmes v Wilson and Others (1839) 10 A&E 503
  • Remon v City of London Real Property Co. Ltd [1921] 1 KB 49
  • Dr. Adeodanta Kekitiinwa and Three Others v Edward Maudo Wakida (CA Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2007)
  • Okot Nelson Ojuk v Nyeko Esanueri (Civil Appeal No. 058 of 2018)
  • Waimiha Saw Mills Co. Ltd v Waione Timber Co. Ltd [1926] AC 101
  • David Ssejaaka Nalima v Rebecca Musoke (CA No. 12 of 1985)
  • B.E.A Timber Co. v Inder Singh Gill [1959] 463
  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (HCCS No. 13 of 1993)
  • Erukan Kuwe v Isaac Patrick Matovu & Another (HCCS No. 177 of 2003)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Charles Acire v Myaana Engola (HCCS No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (SCCA No. 17 of 1992)
  • Robert Cuossens v Attorney General (SCCA No. 8 of 1999)
  • Ongom v Attorney General [1979] HCB 267
  • Francis Butagira v Deborah Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1989)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Company (1981) HCB 35
  • Sutherland v Canada (Attorney General) 2008 BCCA 27

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Teefe Paul v Gasitafas Kakaire and Others (Civil Suit 49 of 2007) [2023] UGHC 66 (30 August 2023)
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.