Wakilii

The Registered Trustees of the Banakalori Brothers v ATC Uganda and Eaton Towers (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 104 of 2017)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 557 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for trespass and declaration concerning access road, electric wires, and underground fibers
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with declarations of trespass, award of general damages, and order for joint valuation to determine compensation

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

The High Court held that the defendants and their predecessors were trespassers on the plaintiff's land by continuing to use an access road, electric wires, and underground fibers after termination of the original lease agreement. The court found that the access road did not constitute an easement for the defendants, as it was created solely for the purposes of the terminated lease. The claim was not time-barred as the trespass was continuing. The court awarded general damages of UGX 50,000,000 and ordered a joint valuation to determine compensation for the access road and damage to the land.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with declarations of trespass, award of general damages, and order for joint valuation to determine compensation

Facts

In 2002, MTN (U) Ltd, predecessor to the first defendant, entered into a 10-year lease agreement with the plaintiff for land on which to erect a telecommunications mast. The agreement permitted MTN to create an access road. The lease was terminated on 28 February 2005 when it was discovered that the land on which the mast stood belonged to John Kamuli, not the plaintiff. MTN then entered a lease with Kamuli for the mast site. However, MTN and subsequently the first defendant continued to use the access road, electric wires, and underground fiber cables on the plaintiff's land. The second defendant's predecessors (Africell and Airtel) also began using the access road from around 2007-2008. The defendants' companies later amalgamated. The plaintiff claimed the defendants were trespassing by continuing to use the access road and infrastructure on its land after the lease termination.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is barred by the Limitation Act?
  2. Whether the existing road constituted an easement for the defendants?
  3. Whether the defendants' predecessors in title and themselves are trespassers on land comprised in Plot 29 Block 298 by way of electric wires, access road and underground fibers?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • A declaration that the access road does not constitute an easement for the defendants.
  • A declaration that the defendants are trespassers on the suit land comprised in Plot 29 Block 298 by way of electric wires, access road and underground fibers.
  • General damages of UGX 50,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff at an interest rate of 6% per annum from 29 February 2005 till payment in full.
  • An order for a joint valuation at shared cost by both parties to be conducted by the government valuer to determine the current market value of the access road and damage caused on the suit land; the sum determined to be paid by the defendants as compensation to the plaintiff at an interest rate of 6% per annum from the date of delivery of judgment until payment in full.
  • An order that the joint valuation be conducted within two months from delivery of judgment, after which the parties can enter into a fresh lease agreement to formalize their working arrangement over the access road, electric wires and underground fibers.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Preliminary Objections — Limitation — Continuing Trespass
In cases of continuing trespass, the issue of limitation does not bar an action even if the initial act of trespass occurred more than 12 years before suit was filed, because the trespass is ongoing and the cause of action accrues afresh with each day of continued unlawful occupation or use.
Expert Evidence — Valuation Reports — Practicing Certificate Requirement
A valuation report prepared by a surveyor who did not hold a valid practicing certificate at the time of conducting the valuation has no evidential value and must be expunged from the record, notwithstanding that the surveyor was registered and had applied to renew the certificate.
Easements — Contractual Easements — Termination of Lease
Where an access road is created as a contractual easement pursuant to a lease agreement, the right to use that access road ceases upon termination of the lease agreement and does not constitute a perpetual easement or a right that survives the termination of the contract that created it.
Trespass to Land — Continuing Use After Lease Termination
Where a lessee continues to use access roads, electric power lines, and underground fiber cables on a lessor's land after termination of the lease agreement, and the lease agreement required removal of all fixtures and fittings upon termination, such continued use constitutes trespass to land.
Trespass — Successor Liability — Assignment of Rights
A defendant who acquires rights by assignment from a predecessor in title is liable for the predecessor's acts of trespass from the date of the initial trespass up to the date of assignment, and for its own acts of trespass from the date of assignment onwards.
Mesne Profits — Burden of Proof
In a claim for mesne profits, the test is not what the landlord has lost or would have earned by letting out the property, but what the wrongful occupant has actually received. The plaintiff must adduce evidence of the profits actually received by the defendant arising from the wrongful occupation; the court cannot grant mesne profits based on speculation.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (13)

  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 696
  • Gawaya Tegule v KCCA and Another (Civil Suit No. 214 of 2011)
  • Uganda Muslim Supreme Council v Namubiru Mary (HCT-01-CV-LD-004 of 2015)
  • Nsubuga v Mukundane (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 208 of 2018)
  • Paddy Musoke v John Agard and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2016)
  • Dennis Desire Mitti v Patrick Ssewagude Musoke and 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 449 of 2016)
  • Takya Kuahwahiri and Another v Kajongu Denis (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi (2002) 1 EA 35
  • Ruth Simwogerere v George William Charles Sserwadda (High Court Civil Suit No. 244 of 2015)
  • Nasela & Mukakaik Ltd v. Kenya Urban Roads Authority & 2 Others; County Government of Kitui (interested party) (Environment and Land Appeal 13 of 2021) [2023] KEELC 21544 (KLR) (31 October, 2023)
  • Kiyega Constance v Jamil Nazir (High Court Civil Suit No. 361 of 2014)
  • Vivo Energies (U) Ltd v Lydia Kisitu (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2015)
  • Umayun Dhaurajgir v. Ezra Aboody, 2008 (6)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The Registered Trustees of the Banakalori Brothers v ATC Uganda and Eaton Towers (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 104 of 2017) [2025] UGHC 557 (18 June 2025)
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.