[2022] UGHCLD 70

[2022] UGHCLD 70

The court found that none of the Defendants proved, on the balance of probabilities, that they were lawful or bonafide occupants of the suit land as defined under Section 29 of the Land Act. The Defendants failed to authenticate documentary evidence of occupancy, did not establish a nexus between alleged agents and the registered owner, and did not meet the statutory requirements for lawful or bonafide occupancy. The court accepted the Plaintiff's evidence of unencumbered title and physical possession, and found that the Defendants' entry and activities on the land constituted trespass. The Defendants' counterclaim was dismissed. The Plaintiff was declared the true owner, the Defendants...

Citation
[2022] UGHCLD 70
Parties
Plaintiff: Kalungi Kirumira Moses; Defendant: Lt Mbazira Sebinene; Defendant: Kavulu Badru; Defendant: Julayina Nansubuga; Defendant: Nalongo Sembatya; Defendant: Nalongo Ssebagala; Defendant: Sheikh Nuhu; Defendant: Ronald Mutebi; Defendant: Kinobe Tofa
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
29 April 2022
Case Number
Civil Suit No. 133 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
judgment_for_plaintiff
Judges
Kawesa, J
Legal Topics
Mailo Land Ownership, Lawful and Bonafide Occupancy, Trespass to Land, Burden of Proof, Special and General Damages
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Mailo Land Ownership Lawful and Bonafide Occupancy Trespass to Land Burden of Proof Special and General Damages

Case Brief

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 6 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kalungi Kirumira Moses

Plaintiff

Lt Mbazira Sebinene

Defendant

Kavulu Badru

Defendant

Julayina Nansubuga

Defendant

Nalongo Sembatya

Defendant

Nalongo Ssebagala

Defendant

Sheikh Nuhu

Defendant

Ronald Mutebi

Defendant

Kinobe Tofa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants are bonafide and/or lawful occupants on the suit land.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants are trespassers on the suit land.
  3. 3 What remedies are available to the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that none of the Defendants proved, on the balance of probabilities, that they were lawful or bonafide occupants of the suit land as defined under Section 29 of the Land Act. The Defendants failed to authenticate documentary evidence of occupancy, did not establish a nexus between alleged agents and the registered owner, and did not meet the statutory requirements for lawful or bonafide occupancy. The court accepted the Plaintiff's evidence of unencumbered title and physical possession, and found that the Defendants' entry and activities on the land constituted trespass. The Defendants' counterclaim was dismissed. The Plaintiff was declared the true owner, the Defendants...

Court Disposition

judgment_for_plaintiff

Orders

  • Declaration that the Plaintiff is the true owner/registered owner of Block 158B Plot 21 at Namulonge, Musaale, Kyadondo.
  • Declaration that the Defendants are trespassers on the suit land.