Wakilii

Vivo Energy Uganda Limited v Kiryewala Emmanuel and Another (Civil Suit No. 918 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 402 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaration of trespass and eviction
Decision
Defendants declared trespassers and ordered to vacate within 120 days; Plaintiff awarded general damages and costs

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, as registered leasehold proprietor, was the lawful owner of the suit land. The 1st Defendant entered the land as a caretaker with the Plaintiff's consent and had constructive notice of the Plaintiff's interests. The Defendants' purported purchase from Fenekansi Mukasa was unlawful as Fenekansi had no legal interest to convey. The Defendants' continued occupation after being directed to vacate in 2019 constituted trespass. The Defendants' preliminary objection based on adverse possession was overruled as they had not pleaded it and the 12-year limitation period had not elapsed. Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with a declaration of trespass, eviction order, and general damages of UGX 10,000,000.

Outcome

Defendants declared trespassers and ordered to vacate within 120 days; Plaintiff awarded general damages and costs

Facts

The Plaintiff held a leasehold interest in land at Plot 26 & 28 Nsamizi Road, Entebbe, registered in 1960 for 49 years. The 1st Defendant was employed by the Plaintiff in 1995 and in 1997 was instructed to act as caretaker of the suit property. The lease expired in 2003 and was renewed in 2009. The 1st Defendant occupied the property with his family without permission. In 2019, the Plaintiff discovered the occupation and directed the 1st Defendant to vacate. The 1st Defendant initially agreed to vacate by September 2019 but did not do so. The Defendants claimed to have purchased the land in 2005 from one Fenekansi Mukasa and applied for a freehold certificate of title in 2020. The District Land Board initially granted a freehold offer in 2022 but cancelled it in April 2023 on grounds of misrepresentation. The 1st Defendant was summarily dismissed from employment in January 2023.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendants are trespassers on the suit land?
  2. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • A declaration that the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of suit land comprised in LRV 335 Folio 23 Plot 26 & 28 at Nsamizi Road Entebbe.
  • A declaration that the Defendants are trespassers on the suit land.
  • The Defendants and their family are hereby ordered to vacate the suit land within 120 days from the date of this Judgment.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded damages of UGX 10,000,000 (ten million shillings only).
  • The Plaintiff is awarded interest on damages at the court rate of 8% per annum from the date of Judgment until payment in full.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Trespass to Land — Elements of the Tort
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 establish 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, made without permission or legal entitlement.
Leasehold Tenure — Renewal and Continuity of Interest
Where a leasehold agreement provides for renewal upon expiry, and the lessee applies for renewal which is subsequently granted by the controlling authority, the lessee's interest continues notwithstanding a gap between expiry and formal renewal. Payment of ground rent during the interim period and acceptance thereof by the authority establishes the lessee as a tenant at will, maintaining continuity of lawful possession.
Adverse Possession — Possession with Consent
A person who enters land with the consent of the registered proprietor and under instructions to act as caretaker cannot claim adverse possession. Possession is not adverse where it commenced with the owner's permission and the occupier had constructive notice of the owner's legal interest throughout the period of occupation.
Adverse Possession — Limitation Period and Pleading Requirements
The doctrine of adverse possession must be specifically pleaded in the defence. A defendant cannot raise adverse possession for the first time in submissions where it was not pleaded and the plaintiff was given no opportunity to challenge the assertion in evidence. The 12-year limitation period under the Limitation Act s.5 runs from the date the owner's consent to occupation is withdrawn, not from the date of initial entry with consent.
Sale of Land — Purchaser's Duty of Due Diligence
A purchaser of land who has constructive notice of a third party's registered interest in the land fails to exercise reasonable care and due diligence expected of a prudent purchaser. Where the purchaser is an employee occupying the land as caretaker for the registered proprietor, the purchase from a person with no demonstrable legal interest is unlawful and cannot validate continued occupation after the proprietor directs vacation.
Credibility of Witnesses — Contradictions and Dishonesty
Where a witness contradicts himself during cross-examination by denying documentary evidence he had previously accepted in his pleadings, and gives inconsistent accounts of material facts, the court is entitled to find the witness dishonest and to question the veracity of his entire testimony.
Mesne Profits — Burden of Proof
In a claim for mesne profits, the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish not only the existence of the right but also the extent of profits received or receivable by the defendant in wrongful possession. Where the plaintiff adduces no evidence of profits accrued from the property and the property is shown to be dilapidated and uninhabitable, no mesne profits are awarded.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (18)

  • Justine E.M.N. Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • F.D.K Zaabwe v Orient Bank & 5 Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 715 of 1999)
  • Sheikh Muhammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 4 of 1987)
  • Maria Specioza v Nambi & Another (High Court Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2017)
  • Dr Ann Persis Nakate v DFCU Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2009)
  • Jane Mbabazi v Halima Gayinamungu (High Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2022)
  • JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd V Graham & Anor [2002] 3 ALLER 865
  • Lutalo Moses v Ojede Abdallah (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2019)
  • Kahigiriza James Vs. Busasi Sezi [1982] HCB 148
  • Pakzad Ali Reza & Another v Kiwanuka Andrew & Anor (Civil Suit No. 180 of 2015)
  • Khatibai Jiwa Vs. Zenab (1957) EA 38
  • Kasifa Namusisi & Others v Francis M.K Ntabaazi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2004)
  • Musisi v Edco and Another (High Court Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2010)
  • George Kasedde Mukasa v Emmanuel Wambedde & 4 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 459 of 1998)
  • Mugisha Kaganzi v Mwesigwa Phillip (High Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2007)
  • Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendu Edward (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • Livingstone Vs. Ronoyard's Coal Co. (1880) 5. App. Cas 259

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Vivo_Energy_Uganda_Limited_v_Kiryewala_Emmanuel_and_Another_(Civil_Suit_No._918_of_2023)_[2025]_UGHCLD_402_(22_December_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.