Tibulya v Kusasira and Another (Civil Suit 45 of 2021)
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 plaintiff acquired valid title to ten acres of land at Kyaggwe Block 94 Plot 470 through a vesting order issued in prior litigation (Jinja High Court Civil Suit No. 101 of 2013), which order remains valid and enforceable. The subdivision of Plot 151 into Plots 470 and 471 pursuant to that court order was lawful and cannot be challenged collaterally. The 1st defendant's purchase of a kibanja interest in 2008 without written consent of the registered proprietor as required by the Land Act s.34(8) and (9) was invalid. The court confirmed that Ddibya Henry Wagaba and Ddibya Henry are the same person. The 1st defendant was held to be a trespasser. General damages of UGX 30,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff, along with vacant possession, permanent injunction, and costs.
Outcome
Plaintiff vindicated as lawful owner; 1st defendant declared trespasser; permanent injunction and damages awarded; counter claim dismissed
Facts
The plaintiff bought ten acres of land at Kyaggwe Block 94 Plot 18 from Ddibya Henry Wagaba on 30 May 2009 for UGX 30,000,000. When Ddibya failed to execute a transfer, the plaintiff sued in Jinja High Court Civil Suit No. 101 of 2013 and obtained judgment on 10 January 2014 with a vesting order issued 23 June 2015, making her registered proprietor of Plot 470. The suit land originally formed part of the estate of late Yokana Lwanira; Plot 151 was created from Plot 18 and later subdivided into Plots 470 and 471. The 1st defendant claimed to have bought a kibanja of 3.6 acres from Kawombe Emmanuel in 2008 for UGX 8,000,000 and later the mailo interest from Ddibya Henry in 2013. In 2020, the plaintiff discovered the 1st defendant had encroached on her land by slightly more than one acre, prompting the instant suit. The 1st defendant lodged a caveat on Plot 470 in September 2020, five years after the plaintiff's registration. Evidence established that Ddibya Henry Wagaba and Ddibya Henry are the same person. The 2nd defendant, served with summons but filing no defence, suffered default judgment on 10 May 2021.
Issues
- Whether the 1st defendant/counter claimant has a valid equitable interest in the suit land
- Whether the 1st defendant is a bonafide purchaser for value of the suit land
- Whether the 1st defendant lawfully purchased a Kibanja on the suit land
- Whether the 1st defendant committed acts of trespass on land comprised in Kyaggwe Block 94 Plot 470 land at Budugala village
- Whether Ddibya Henry Wagaba is the same person as Ddibya Henry who transacted with the Plaintiff
- Whether the suit land was erroneously sub divided from Plot 151
- Whether the Plaintiff acquired a valid interest in the suit land
- What remedies are available to the parties
Orders
- Suit allowed in favour of the plaintiff
- Counter claim dismissed with costs
- Plaintiff declared lawful and registered owner of ten acres of land at Kyaggwe Block 94 Plot 470
- Plaintiff granted vacant possession of land at Kyaggwe Block 94 Plot 470
- General damages of UGX 30,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff
- Permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant/counter claimant, Ddibya Henry Wagaba and their agents from further trespass on the land at Kyaggwe Block 94 Plot 470
- Defendants to pay costs of the suit to the plaintiff
- Counter claimant to pay costs of the counter claim to the 1st counter defendant
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
Cases cited (2)
- Ndimwiho Sande and 3 Others v Allen Peace Ampaire (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2011)
- Cooper Motors Corporation (U) Ltd v Genesis Transporters and 2 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2009)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.