Share
Mulindwa v Attorney General (Civil Suit 782 of 1985) [1985] UGHC 1 (11 November 1985)
- Citation
- [1985] UGHC 1
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Benjamin Odoki, J
- Case number
- Civil Suit 782 of 1985
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Benjamin Odoki, J
- Case number
- Civil Suit 782 of 1985
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the plaintiff, as the registered proprietor of the suit premises, was entitled to possession and to maintain an action in trespass even though he was not in physical occupation. The defendant failed to provide any evidence that the police occupation was lawful or authorized. The continued occupation by the police was therefore unlawful and constituted trespass. The appropriate measure of damages for trespass is the loss suffered by the plaintiff, calculated as the market rental value of the property for the period of wrongful occupation. The plaintiff was awarded general damages for trespass, an eviction order, and mesne profits until payment in full.
Court disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Orders
- The plaintiff is awarded Shs. 16,380,000 as general damages for trespass.
- The plaintiff is granted an order of eviction against the defendant's servants from the suit premises.
- The plaintiff is awarded Shs. 210,000 as mesne profits from the date of judgment until payment in full.
02
Material facts
Parties
Yekoyasi Mulindwa
PlaintiffAttorney General
DefendantAmounts and remedies
- General Damages for Trespass: UGX 16,380,000
- Mesne Profits (from Date of Judgment Until Payment in Full): UGX 210,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the plaintiff, as registered proprietor, was entitled to possession and damages for trespass despite not being in physical occupation of the property.
- 02
Whether the defendant's occupation of the suit premises by the police was lawful or constituted trespass.
- 03
What is the appropriate measure of damages for trespass and mesne profits in the circumstances.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiff argued that he was the registered proprietor of the suit premises and that the police, as agents of the defendant, had unlawfully occupied his property without his consent or payment of rent. He sought general damages for trespass, an eviction order, and mesne profits for the period of wrongful occupation.
- Respondent
- The defendant claimed that the police occupation was lawful, though no evidence was provided to substantiate the circumstances or authorization for the occupation. The defendant did not pay rent nor vacate the premises despite the plaintiff's requests.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Registration of Titles Act (Uganda)
A certificate of title is conclusive evidence that the person named as proprietor possesses the estate and interest described therein.
- 02
Harshad Ltd. v. Globe Cinema Ltd. [1960] E.A. 1046
The registered proprietor is entitled to maintain an action in trespass even if not in physical possession of the property.
- 03
McGregor on Damages, 20th Edn. Para 1060; Karsam v. Batt [1965] E.A. 789
The measure of damages for trespass is the loss suffered by the plaintiff, not the profit made by the defendant; the normal measure is the market rental value for the period of wrongful occupation.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the plaintiff, as the registered proprietor of the suit premises, was entitled to possession and to maintain an action in trespass even though he was not in physical occupation. The defendant failed to provide any evidence that the police occupation was lawful or authorized. The continued occupation by the police was therefore unlawful and constituted trespass. The appropriate measure of damages for trespass is the loss suffered by the plaintiff, calculated as the market rental value of the property for the period of wrongful occupation. The plaintiff was awarded general damages for trespass, an eviction order, and mesne profits until payment in full.
Obiter and limits
- Even where the registered proprietor is not in actual possession, he retains the right to sue for trespass against unlawful occupiers.
- The absence of evidence justifying the defendant's occupation strengthens the plaintiff's claim for both damages and eviction.
Court disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff is awarded Shs. 16,380,000 as general damages for trespass.
- The plaintiff is granted an order of eviction against the defendant's servants from the suit premises.
- The plaintiff is awarded Shs. 210,000 as mesne profits from the date of judgment until payment in full.
Source and reliance status
High Court of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court of Uganda
Judgment
Yekoyasi Mulindwa v. Attorney General
High Court (Odoki J.): November 11th, 1985
(Civil Suit No. "A" 782 of 1985)
Land Law - registered land - ownership - oertificate of title conclusive evidence that person mamed in it as proprietor possessed of the state and interest described therein.
$Tort \rightarrow trespass \rightarrow measure of damages \rightarrow measure of damages$ is loss suffered by plaintiff and not profit made by defendant as result of trespass - normal measures is market rental value of property occupied or used for period of wronful occupation or user.
Tort $\rightarrow$ trespass - property - where no evidence that entry on suit premises and colinued occupation lawful occupation constitutes trespass and registered proprietor of property entitled to mintain action in trespass even if not in possession of property.
This was an action for general damages for trespass, eviction order and mesne profits arising out the lawful occupation of the plaintiff's building by the defendant's servants.
The plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the suit premises which consisted of a house and land at Kololo in Kampala. The property was a double storeyed residential house with visitors quarters behind the house. The plaintiff did not occupy the premises immediately he purchased them in 1972 because he was forced into exile. When he returned in April 1979, he found the premises occupied by the Police. He wrote to the Force Building Officer of the Uganda Police Forde a letter requesting the police to gacate the premises and also pay rent for the period they have been in occupation. The police neither paid the rent nor vacated the house. He therefore decided to bring this suit.
- Since a certificate of title was conclusive evidence HELD: $l_{\bullet}$ that the person named in it as the proprietor was possessed of the estate and interest described therein, the plaintiff had proved that he was registered proprietor of the suit property with effect from the date when his name was entered on the certificate of title. - 2. There was no ovidence to prove that the police entry on the suit premises and continued occupation are lawful as claimed. It was not known under what circumstances they occupied the premises and who authorized the occupation. The occupation of the suit premises was therefore unlauful and constituted a trespass. The plaintiff as registered propriotor of the property was entitled to maintain an action in trespass even if he was not in possession of the property.
The measure of damages for trespast to property $3\bullet$ was the loss suffered by the plaintiff and not the profit made by the defendant as a result of the trespass. The normal measure of damages was the market rental value of the property occupied or used for the period of wrongful occupation or user.
Shs. 16,380,000/= awarded as general damages for trespass.<br>Plaintiff granted order of eviction. Shs. 210,000/= mesne profits from the date of judgment till payment in full.
Casos Citod:
- Harshad Ltd. v. Globe Cinema Ltd. 1960/ E. A. 1046 $\mathbf{I}_{\bullet}$ - Karsam v. Batt $\angle$ 19657 E. A. 789 $2\bullet$ - Moya Drift Farm Ltd. v. Theuri 19737 E. A. 114 3. - $4.$ Olinda De Souza Figueredo v. Kassamali Manji /1962/ E. A. 756
21 October 14
$5\bullet$ Rwamuratiri v. Kamomo Miso. Cause No. 72 of 1977.
Other materials considered:
McGregor on Damagos 20th Edn. Para 1060 p. 713.
$\begin{pmatrix} S_{\bullet} & B_{\bullet} & B_{\bullet} \end{pmatrix}$
this was a rowing out of above to a received three in a majorit a not request up paid on a part by the paid of the paid ton on a mind off playman was have add an
significant in the property of the state of the property of the two direction of the result better to the car he had The property in the state of the state of the property of to the prime of the bounded in the pain of of another at the partition off to recent part. Two Etabora and the foresting members of all the pro-
$\text{where even from } \mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L} = \text{with } \mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}$ Suffer a communication in any store of a finding the property
On Moderate and Manager of Links of the Inthe state of the property of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state o manufacture in the state of the second the the section of the same was not the same and recommend on the set of the two compacts the markets
wear aroun with the
CONTRACT MELLINE IN BACK OF THE RE-
And the same of the parties with the parties of the parties of
COLOT
the domatt
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.