Wakilii

Zaali and Another v Uganda National Roads Authority and Another (HCT-01-CV-CA-LD 13 of 2019)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 173 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiffs (against 2nd Defendant) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for trespass and damages
Decision
Judgment for plaintiffs against 2nd defendant. Suit dismissed as against 1st defendant

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 second defendant, an independent contractor engaged in road construction, trespassed on the plaintiffs' land by dumping spoil material without permission. The first defendant, as principal, was not liable for acts of the independent contractor. The court awarded general damages but declined specific compensation where the valuation report relied upon was prepared by an unqualified valuer. Interest runs on general damages from judgment at 8% per annum.

Outcome

Judgment for plaintiffs against 2nd defendant. Suit dismissed as against 1st defendant

Facts

The plaintiffs owned registered land at Rwendongo village, Kamwenge district. In or around 2017, while constructing the Kamwenge-Fort Portal Highway, the second defendant (contracted by the first defendant to execute the works) dumped unwanted spoil material comprising murram, soil and stones on the plaintiffs' land without permission. The dumping affected a portion of farm land, rendering it unsuitable for agriculture. One of the plaintiffs' cows died after stepping on the heap and sliding. The plaintiffs engaged a valuer to assess restoration costs, which were estimated at UGX 108,322,500. The court visited the locus in quo in October 2022 and observed the dumped materials. The first defendant denied liability, arguing the second defendant was an independent contractor responsible for arranging spoil disposal. The second defendant denied trespassing and stated it followed designs provided by the first defendant.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants trespassed on the plaintiffs' land
  2. Who of the defendants is liable in the circumstances
  3. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • The 2nd defendant trespassed on the suit land
  • The plaintiffs are awarded UGX 20,000,000/= in general damages against the 2nd defendant
  • Interest on general damages is allowed at 8% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full
  • The suit is dismissed as against the 1st defendant with no order as to costs
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the plaintiffs

Rules and key headnotes

Trespass to Land — Elements of the Tort
To disclose a cause of action in trespass to land, the plaintiff must plead and prove that: (a) he was in possession of the suit land at the time of the entry complained of; (b) there was an unlawful or unauthorised entry by the defendant; and (c) the entry occasioned him damage.
Vicarious Liability — Independent Contractors — Liability of Principal
A principal will not be liable for the negligent acts or torts of an independent contractor. Where a contractor has contractual responsibility to make necessary arrangements with private parties for disposal of spoil material, the principal is not liable for trespass committed by the contractor in breach of that responsibility.
Expert Evidence — Valuation — Qualification of Valuers
A valuation report prepared by an unqualified and unlicensed valuer cannot be relied upon by the court to make an award of compensation, as it lacks professional competence and firm evidentiary foundation.
Damages — General Damages — Assessment
In assessing general damages, courts are guided by the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience that a party may have been put through, and the nature and extent of the breach or injury suffered.
Damages — Interest on Damages — Rate and Commencement
Interest on general damages is awarded from the date of judgment until payment in full. In determining a just and reasonable rate of interest, courts take into account the prevailing economic value of money, inflation, and depreciation of currency.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (10)

  • James Nambale v Construction Enterprises (PUT) Sarajevo Ltd (HCCS No. 123 of 2000)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (H.C. Civil Suit No. 13 of 1993)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1894) 9 Exch 341
  • Charles Acire v M. Engola (H.C. Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (S.C. Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Harbutt's Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank and Pump Co Ltd [1970] QB 447
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Ltd (H.C. Civil Suit No. 234 of 2011)
  • Kinyera v The Management Committee of Laroo Boarding Primary School (H.C. Civil Suit No. 099 of 2013)
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (No. 2) [1970] EA 469

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Zaali_and_Another_v_Uganda_National_Roads_Authority_and_Another_(HCT-01-CV-CA-LD_13_of_2019)_[2023]_UGHCLD_173_(28_February_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.