[2021] UGHC 25

[2021] UGHC 25

The Plaintiff proved ownership of the suit land by presenting evidence of purchase and registration. The Defendants, having failed to appear or rebut the Plaintiff's evidence, were found to have entered and cultivated the land without the Plaintiff's consent. The court, relying on the burden of proof provisions and the definition of trespass, found that the Plaintiff is the rightful owner and the Defendants are trespassers. The Plaintiff is entitled to eviction of the Defendants, a permanent injunction against further trespass, and costs of the suit.

Citation
[2021] UGHC 25
Parties
Plaintiff: Sempiira Noah (suing through his attorney Bakka Kenneth Rogers); Defendant: Nalima Godfrey; Defendant: Kato John Ssalongo; Defendant: Walulya Kulanema; Defendant: Semuli Robert; Defendant: Sentongo Herman; Defendant: Muhoozi Ronald; Defendant: Bafaki Jackson; Defendant: Robinah Naluzze; Defendant: Nassozi Jane
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
15 April 2021
Case Number
HCT 05-CR-MA 45 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff.
Judges
Ojok, J
Legal Topics
Trespass to Land, Ownership Disputes, Eviction Orders, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Trespass to Land Ownership Disputes Eviction Orders Burden of Proof

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sempiira Noah (suing through his attorney Bakka Kenneth Rogers)

Plaintiff

Nalima Godfrey

Defendant

Kato John Ssalongo

Defendant

Walulya Kulanema

Defendant

Semuli Robert

Defendant

Sentongo Herman

Defendant

Muhoozi Ronald

Defendant

Bafaki Jackson

Defendant

Robinah Naluzze

Defendant

Nassozi Jane

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff is the rightful owner of the suit property.
  2. 2 Whether or not the defendants are trespassers on the suit property.
  3. 3 What remedies are available for the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff proved ownership of the suit land by presenting evidence of purchase and registration. The Defendants, having failed to appear or rebut the Plaintiff's evidence, were found to have entered and cultivated the land without the Plaintiff's consent. The court, relying on the burden of proof provisions and the definition of trespass, found that the Plaintiff is the rightful owner and the Defendants are trespassers. The Plaintiff is entitled to eviction of the Defendants, a permanent injunction against further trespass, and costs of the suit.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff is declared the rightful owner of the suit property comprised on Block 226 Plot 41 at Buluusi Mpigi District.
  • An order of eviction against all trespassers is issued.