[2018] UGHCCD 36

[2018] UGHCCD 36

The Applicant lawfully purchased the disputed land through a court-sanctioned execution process, as evidenced by the sale agreement and bailiff's report. The Respondent was duly notified of the execution but refused to vacate the premises. The judgment in Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2005 conclusively determined the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] UGHCCD 36
Parties
Applicant: Kiiza Laban; Respondent: Kabajungu Joweria
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT – 01 – CV – LD – MA 0020 OF 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application allowed in part
Judges
Musene, J
Legal Topics
Execution of Judgment, Vacant Possession, Eviction Orders, Sale of Land Under Execution, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Execution of Judgment Vacant Possession Eviction Orders Sale of Land Under Execution Costs Award

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kiiza Laban

Applicant

Kabajungu Joweria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant is entitled to an order of vacant possession or eviction against the Respondent from the disputed land.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent should be committed to Civil Prison for obstructing possession of immovable property.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant is entitled to costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant lawfully purchased the disputed land through a court-sanctioned execution process, as evidenced by the sale agreement and bailiff's report. The Respondent was duly notified of the execution but refused to vacate the premises. The judgment in Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2005 conclusively determined the rights to the property, and the Respondent did not appeal. The Applicant is therefore entitled to vacant possession. Committal of the Respondent to Civil Prison is declined to avoid double punishment, as she has already lost the property. Costs are awarded to the Applicant, and the sum deposited in Court for the Respondent is to be handed over to her.

Court Disposition

application allowed in part

Orders

  • Order of vacant possession issued in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent, her agents, and any person claiming under her authority from the disputed land at Kyenjojo Town Council.
  • Application for committal of the Respondent to Civil Prison is declined.