[2005] UGHC 71

[2005] UGHC 71

The court found that the defendants were not bonafide occupants as they had not occupied the land for the requisite period unchallenged prior to the coming into force of the Constitution, and there was no registered owner until 1984. The evidence showed the land was uninhabited and undeveloped at the time the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] UGHC 71
Parties
Plaintiff: Bumero Estates Limited; Defendant: Kitosi Charles; Defendant: Bukububa Lubanga Hassan; Defendant: Waiswa Denis; Defendant: Olapa Jamada and 1,263 others
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Suit No. 122 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendants' counterclaim dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Trespass to Land, Customary Tenure, Bonafide Occupants, Fraudulent Title, Eviction, Damages
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Trespass to Land Customary Tenure Bonafide Occupants Fraudulent Title Eviction Damages

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bumero Estates Limited

Plaintiff

Kitosi Charles

Defendant

Bukububa Lubanga Hassan

Defendant

Waiswa Denis

Defendant

Olapa Jamada and 1,263 others

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the defendants were bonafide occupants of the suit property.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants held the suit property customarily at the time the plaintiffs acquired the land.
  3. 3 Whether the suit property was available for leasing at the time it was leased.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants were not bonafide occupants as they had not occupied the land for the requisite period unchallenged prior to the coming into force of the Constitution, and there was no registered owner until 1984. The evidence showed the land was uninhabited and undeveloped at the time the plaintiff acquired title, with no customary tenure established. The defendants' claims of prior occupation were inconsistent and contradicted by evidence from the plaintiff, surveyors, and local officials. The court held that the land was available for leasing when the plaintiff applied, and the title was not obtained fraudulently, as no acts of fraud were strictly proved. The...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendants' counterclaim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Defendants and all holding under them to be evicted from the land.
  • A permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering the plaintiff's property is issued.