Wakilii

United Cultivate Co. (U) Limited v United Properties Limited (Civil Appeal 1 of 1983)

Court of Appeal · [1984] UGCA 1 · 1984 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Uganda at Kampala in a suit for trespass and recovery of possession of land
Decision
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed and judgment entered against the 2nd defendant with general damages of Shs. 1,000/= for trespass

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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 Court of Appeal held that under the Registration of Titles Act a registered proprietor holds legal possession by virtue of title and may sue in trespass without being in actual physical occupation, departing from the English rule requiring possession. Trespassers cannot rely on a third party's lease title. The plaintiff's evidence sufficiently showed the lessee had abandoned the property, and the plaintiff had effected valid re-entry. The appeal was dismissed with costs. On the cross-appeal, the court held the 2nd defendant was a trespasser; absence of the word 'jointly' and want of notice to quit did not defeat the claim. The cross-appeal was allowed and judgment entered against the 2nd defendant.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed and judgment entered against the 2nd defendant with general damages of Shs. 1,000/= for trespass

Facts

The respondent (plaintiff), a British company operating in Uganda as Mitchell Cotts, owned two freehold properties in Uganda on which two houses stood. In 1973 the properties were leased to Uganda Company (Africa) Ltd for thirty-five years. The plaintiff left Uganda following the expulsion of non-citizens. The lessee's officers ceased to occupy the houses, which were subsequently handed over to other parties and taken over by the appellant (1st defendant) and another. The plaintiff demanded the properties from the defendants, who refused. The plaintiff sued for vacant possession, mesne profits and general damages for trespass. The High Court entered judgment for the plaintiff against the 1st defendant but dismissed the suit against the 2nd defendant, who had occupied a house as an employee of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant appealed and the plaintiff cross-appealed against dismissal of the suit against the 2nd defendant.

Issues

  1. Whether there was sufficient evidence that the lessee (Uganda Company (Africa) Ltd) had abandoned the property.
  2. Whether the plaintiff, as registered proprietor and reversioner, could sue in trespass before expiry of the lease and without being in actual physical possession.
  3. Whether the plaintiff had effected a valid re-entry on the premises so as to maintain an action in trespass.
  4. Whether the suit against the 2nd defendant was properly constituted given the omission of the word 'jointly' in the plaint and the absence of notice to quit.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Cross-appeal allowed with costs.
  • Order of the High Court dismissing the suit against the 2nd defendant set aside, with costs.
  • Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff against the 2nd defendant with costs.
  • 2nd defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff general damages of Shs. 1,000/= for trespass.
  • Other orders of the High Court remain undisturbed.

Rules and key headnotes

Trespass to Land — Registered Proprietor — Legal Possession by Virtue of Title
A person holding a certificate of title under the Registration of Titles Act has, by virtue of that title, legal possession of the land and may sue in trespass whether or not he is in actual physical occupation, the Ugandan position departing from the English requirement of actual possession.
Trespass to Land — Defendant Cannot Rely on Third Party's Title (jus tertii)
A trespasser cannot rely on the title of a third party (such as a lessee) to defeat the claim of a registered proprietor; the trespasser must defend on the strength of his own title.
Leases — Abandonment by Lessee — Landlord's Right of Re-entry
Where a lessee abandons leased premises, leaving them unoccupied with no officers in occupation and no means of excluding trespassers, the landlord may re-enter and re-let the premises before expiry of the lease, abandonment being a question of fact provable by direct or circumstantial evidence.
Re-entry — Sufficiency of Acts Constituting Re-entry
Re-entry may be effected by the landlord setting foot on the demised land, by a formal demand, or by issue and service of summons claiming possession; entering upon the land, valuing the premises, demanding the premises and serving summons together constitute valid re-entry.
Joinder of Defendants — Omission of Word 'Jointly' — Cause of Action
The omission of the word 'jointly' in a plaint is not fatal where each defendant is in independent trespass; a plaint must be read as a whole rather than literally, and a cause of action may be inferred where each defendant is sued separately as a trespasser.
Trespass — Servant in Occupation — Liability Independent of Master's Title
A servant in occupation of premises is a sufficient trespasser and is liable to the person with the true title; where the alleged master is himself a trespasser with no title to pass, the servant's trespass cannot be attributed to the master and the servant remains personally liable.
Appeals — Record of Appeal — Failure to Incorporate Exhibits
Exhibits produced at trial must be incorporated in the record of appeal as required by r.85(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal; failure to strictly comply with the rule may result in dismissal of the appeal.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (11)

  • Jones v. Llanrwst Urban District Council (1911) 1 Ch. 393
  • Mayfair Property Co. v. Johnstone (1894) 1 Ch. 508
  • Wuta-Ofei v. Danquah (1961) All E.R. 596
  • Moya Drift Farm Ltd. v. Theuri (1973) E.A. 142
  • Hellier v. Atcheson E.R. vol.130 p.991
  • Bird v. Defonvielle E.R. vol.175 p.171
  • Canas Property Co. Ltd. v. K.L. Television Service Ltd. (1970) 2 W.L.R. 113
  • Z.E. Kanyange v. Attorney General (1972) 2 U.L.R. 130
  • Sullivan v. Canan (1919) E.A. 219
  • Wilson v. Waddell E.R.
  • Nirmal Singh v. Bant Singh (1961) E.A. 158

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

United Cultivate Co. (U) Limited v United Properties Limited (Civil Appeal 1 of 1983) [1984] UGCA 1 (27 January 1984)
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.