Download

Uganda Judgment

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Mwesigye v Kisiriko (Civil Suit No. 522 of 2012) [2022] UGHCLD 37 (17 February 2022)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the defendants had no legally recognized interest in the suit land, as there was no evidence of payment of busuulu or any form of consent or authorization from the plaintiff, who is the registered proprietor and administrator of the estate. Any purported sale or transfer of the kibanja between the defendants was void ab initio for failure to procure written permission from the registered owner as required by law. The defendants' unauthorized entry and continued occupation of the suit land constituted trespass. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to a declaration of ownership, a declaration that the defendants are trespassers, nullification of the defendants' transactions, an order for vacant possession, and costs.

Court disposition

judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Declaration that the defendants are trespassers on the suit land.
  • Declaration that the plaintiff is the legitimate owner of the land as administrator of the estate of the late Israel Cook.
  • Declaration that the transactions entered into by the defendants in respect of the suit land are null and void.
  • Order of vacant possession against the defendants.
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff.

02

Material facts

Parties

Isaac Mwesigye

Plaintiff Counsel: Kakeeto Mohamood

Kisiriko Nasanayiri

Defendant

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Suit / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of the late Israel Cook and registered proprietor of the suit land, argued that the defendants dealt with the land without consent or authorization, purportedly sold portions, and ignored efforts at amicable resolution. The plaintiff contended that the defendants are trespassers, that no busuulu was paid, and that any transactions by the defendants were void for lack of legal interest and written permission from the registered owner.
Respondent
The defendants did not appear and did not file a defense. The matter proceeded ex parte.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Land Act as amended (2004)

    Transactions in land without written permission from the registered owner are void ab initio.

  2. 02

    Common law and Land Act

    A person who enters or remains on land without lawful authority is a trespasser.

  3. 03

    Land Act; Succession Act Cap 162

    Only the registered proprietor or their authorized agent can lawfully transact in registered land.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the defendants had no legally recognized interest in the suit land, as there was no evidence of payment of busuulu or any form of consent or authorization from the plaintiff, who is the registered proprietor and administrator of the estate. Any purported sale or transfer of the kibanja between the defendants was void ab initio for failure to procure written permission from the registered owner as required by law. The defendants' unauthorized entry and continued occupation of the suit land constituted trespass. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to a declaration of ownership, a declaration that the defendants are trespassers, nullification of the defendants' transactions, an order for vacant possession, and costs.

Obiter and limits

  • Transactions premised on illegalities are void ab initio.
  • The absence of payment of busuulu or consent from the registered owner negates any claim to kibanja rights.

Court disposition

judgment for the plaintiff

  • Declaration that the defendants are trespassers on the suit land.
  • Declaration that the plaintiff is the legitimate owner of the land as administrator of the estate of the late Israel Cook.
  • Declaration that the transactions entered into by the defendants in respect of the suit land are null and void.
  • Order of vacant possession against the defendants.
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Source and reliance status

HC: Land Division (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.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Judgment

[2022] UGHCLD 37

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (LAND DIVISION)

CIVIL SUIT NO.522 OF 2012

ISAAC MWESIGYE:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

KISIRIKO NASANAYIRI::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::DEFENDANT BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE HENRY I. KAWESA JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff's suit against the Defendants jointly and severely for;

- i) trespass onto a portion of their land situate in Kyadondo Block 200, formerly plot 102 now plot 1798, land at Kawempe, which forms part of the *estate of the late Israel Cook, who died in or about 1986 (herein after referred to as the suit property),* - ii) General damages for trespass, - iii) Mesne profits, - iv) Interest of 20% and; - v) Costs of the suit.

The Plaintiff's brief facts are as hereunder;

- a) That the Plaintiffs are the Administrators of the estate of the late Israel Cook and are the registered proprietors of the suit land as such, - b) That the 1st Defendant dealt in the suit land without any consent and or authorisation whatsoever from the Plaintiffs and purportedly sold portions to the 2nd Defendant among others, - c) That on numerous occasions, the Plaintiffs engaged Local Council offices to prevail over the Defendants and have amicable means of understanding, but to no avail and instead, the Defendants provocatively ignored their civil leader's efforts to resolve the dispute, - d) That the Defendants are trespassers on the suit land,

- e) That the transactions in (c) above, were after the Plaintiffs had obtained the Letters of Administration in or about, - f) That in the circumstances, it's majorly the Land Act as amended by the amendment Act (2004) and the Succession Act Cap 162 that shall majorly govern these proceedings.

It has been proved as argued by Counsel that in the instant case, there is no *scintilla* of proof that the Defendants ever paid 'busuulu' not have the Plaintiffs admitted anywhere in their pleadings nor in their evidence that they have ever received any busuulu past 1998 when they obtained a grant.

In light of the fore going, the Defendant did not own a kibanja on the suit land and as such, they could not transact in something they never owned and or at all, for transactions premised on illegalities are *void abinitio*.

CS NO. 522 OF 2012-ISAAC MWESIGYE VS KISIRIO N KIYINGI (JUDGMENT)

I find that the purported sale and transfer of the suit kibanja between themselves was *void abinitio*, for failure to procure written permission from the registered owner as the law dictates.

ii) Whether the Defendants are trespassers on the suit land.

The Plaintiffs led evidence to prove that the 1st and 2nd Defendants have not been sufficiently proved to have any legally recognised interest in the suit land. It would thus follow that their un authorised entry/and continued occupation upon/of the suit land constituted a tort of trespass.

Issue 3

What are the remedies available to the parties

The Plaintiff prayed for the following:

a) A declaration that the Defendants are trespassers on the suit land. This is granted.

- b) A declaration that the Plaintiffs is the legitimate owner of the land situate in Kyadondo Block 200 plot 102 at Kawempe as administrators of the estate of the late Israel Cook. This is granted. - c) A declaration that the transactions entered into between the Defendant and in respect of the land comprised in Kyadondo and in respect of the land comprised in Kyadondo block 200 plot 102 now (*1798)* at Kawempe are *null and void*. This is also granted. - d) An order of vacant possession against the Defendants is granted as prayed. - e) Costs are awarded to the Plaintiff.

I so order.

................................................. Henry I. Kawesa JUDGE 17/02/2022

17/02/2022:

Kakeeto Mohamood for the Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs absent.

Defendants absent.

Court:

Judgment delivered to Counsel for the Plaintiffs.

Matter having proceeded *exparte*.

Henry I. Kawesa JUDGE 17/02/2022

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Land Act as amended (2004)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Succession Act Cap 162

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.