[2017] UGHCLD 86

[2017] UGHCLD 86

The court found that both parties constructed their buildings before the plots were surveyed, resulting in a corridor of approximately two feet between the buildings. The superstructures of both buildings lie within their respective plots, but the defendant constructed a wall at the front of the corridor, extending...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] UGHCLD 86
Parties
Plaintiff: Draza Moses; Defendant: Aderubo Richard
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
22 June 2017
Case Number
Civil Suit No. 0003 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the plaintiff
Judges
Stephen Mubiru, J
Legal Topics
Trespass to Land, Boundary Disputes, Damages for Trespass, Injunctive Relief
Source Language
english
Land and Property Tort Law Trespass to Land Boundary Disputes Damages for Trespass Injunctive Relief

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Draza Moses

Plaintiff

Aderubo Richard

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is a trespasser on the plaintiff's land.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both parties constructed their buildings before the plots were surveyed, resulting in a corridor of approximately two feet between the buildings. The superstructures of both buildings lie within their respective plots, but the defendant constructed a wall at the front of the corridor, extending one foot into the plaintiff's plot and sealing off the space. This encroachment was unauthorized and constitutes trespass, regardless of the absence of actual damage or the defendant's belief regarding boundaries. The court relied on the deed plans in the title deeds and observations at the locus in quo, rejecting the argument that customary spacing between buildings had legal...

Court Disposition

judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • The defendant shall remove the offending part of his wall within thirty days from the date of judgment.
  • If the defendant fails to comply, enforced demolition by court shall ensue.