Share
Samsudin v Ssentumbwe (Civil Suit No.343 of 2002) [2004] UGHC 20 (5 July 2004)
- Citation
- [2004] UGHC 20
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Posture
- Civil Suit / Judgment
- Case number
- Civil Suit No.343 of 2002
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Posture
- Civil Suit / Judgment
- Case number
- Civil Suit No.343 of 2002
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the demolished part of her house, pit latrine, and loss of use of land, as her developments were lawfully established and the defendant's demolition was not justified by any valid legal right to destroy the plaintiff's property without compensation. The court preferred the valuation evidence of Mr. Babumba Kyeyune, which was more comprehensive and credible, accounting for the value of the demolished structures, disturbance allowance, and loss of usufruct. The court discounted some of the claimed amounts but ultimately awarded the plaintiff a total of shs 3.9 million, finding that the defendant's actions caused substantial loss to the plaintiff and that compensation was the appropriate remedy. The defendant's lower valuation was rejected due to lack of thoroughness and failure to consider all relevant factors.
Court disposition
judgment for the plaintiff
Orders
- The defendant shall pay the plaintiff shs 3,900,000 as compensation for the demolished part of the house, pit latrine, loss of use, and disturbance allowance.
- The defendant shall pay the costs of the suit.
02
Material facts
Parties
Zena Muhammed nee Zena Samusudin
Plaintiff Counsel: MbogoDr. Simon Ssentumbwe
DefendantAmounts and remedies
- Compensation Awarded: UGX 3,900,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the demolished part of her house and other structures on plot 609.
- 02
Whether the defendant was liable for demolishing the plaintiff's property that encroached on his plot.
- 03
What is the appropriate quantum of compensation due to the plaintiff.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiff argued that she was entitled to compensation for the demolished part of her house, pit latrine, and loss of use of land, as her developments were valued in excess of shs 9 million. She relied on a valuation by Mr. Babumba Kyeyune, who assessed the value of the demolished structures and disturbance allowance, emphasizing her bibanja interest and the loss suffered due to the defendant's actions.
- Respondent
- The defendant contended that the plaintiff was a trespasser by virtue of the protruded structure and denied liability. He offered only shs 550,000 as compensation, relying on a lower valuation by Mr. Nicholas Sali, who did not account for disturbance allowance or the full extent of the demolished property. The defendant admitted to demolishing part of the house but disputed the quantum and basis of compensation.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law principles of compensation and Ugandan land law
A person whose lawful developments are demolished or removed from land by another is entitled to compensation for the value of the structures and for disturbance.
- 02
Expert valuation evidence; practice in land compensation cases
Valuation for compensation must consider the actual loss, including disturbance allowance and depreciation, and should be based on credible expert evidence.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the demolished part of her house, pit latrine, and loss of use of land, as her developments were lawfully established and the defendant's demolition was not justified by any valid legal right to destroy the plaintiff's property without compensation. The court preferred the valuation evidence of Mr. Babumba Kyeyune, which was more comprehensive and credible, accounting for the value of the demolished structures, disturbance allowance, and loss of usufruct. The court discounted some of the claimed amounts but ultimately awarded the plaintiff a total of shs 3.9 million, finding that the defendant's actions caused substantial loss to the plaintiff and that compensation was the appropriate remedy. The defendant's lower valuation was rejected due to lack of thoroughness and failure to consider all relevant factors.
Obiter and limits
- The defendant's efforts to resolve the plaintiff's claim were unimpressive and showed little care for the plaintiff's property rights.
- Demolition of part of a building can cause significant damage to the user and value of the remaining property.
Court disposition
judgment for the plaintiff
- The defendant shall pay the plaintiff shs 3,900,000 as compensation for the demolished part of the house, pit latrine, loss of use, and disturbance allowance.
- The defendant shall pay the costs of the suit.
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
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f1\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Arial;} {\f37\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f38\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f40\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f41\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;} {\f42\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f43\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f44\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f45\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);} {\f47\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CE;}{\f48\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Cyr;}{\f50\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Greek;}{\f51\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Tur;}{\f52\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial (Hebrew);} {\f53\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial (Arabic);}{\f54\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Baltic;}{\f55\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial
(Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0; \red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128; \red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{ \s1\qc \li0\ri0\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel0\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\f1\fs28\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 1;}{\s2\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1 \keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\f1\fs28\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 2;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\* \ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\qc
\li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f1\fs28\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 Title;}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 footer;}{\*\cs17 \additive \sbasedon10 page number;}{\s18\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f1\fs28\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext18 Body Text;} }{\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid12395633}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA}{\author Typings}{\operator owner}{\creatim\yr2008\mo3\dy25\hr11\min18}{\revtim\yr2008\mo3\dy25\hr11\min18} {\printim\yr2004\mo7\dy5\hr12\min47}{\version2}{\edmins1}{\nofpages5}{\nofwords804}{\nofchars4586}{\*\company Acer Customer}{\nofcharsws5380}{\vern24689}} \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nojkernpunct\rsidroot12395633 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql
\li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12395633 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12395633 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12395633 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12395633 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\footer \pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\pvpara\phmrg\posxc\posy0\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs17\insrsid12395633 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\cs17\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid12395633 5}}}{\cs17\insrsid12395633 \par }\pard \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12395633 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta
.}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s15\qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f1\fs28\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid12395633 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA \par }\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\f1\fs28\insrsid12395633 \par IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA \par \par CIVIL SUIT NO. 343 OF 2002 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\f1\fs28\insrsid12395633 \par \par ZENA MUHAMMED NEE ZENA \par SAMUSUDIN :::::::::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFF \par \par }\pard\plain \s1\qc \li0\ri0\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel0\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\f1\fs28\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12395633 VERSUS \par }\pard\plain \ql
\li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f1\fs28\insrsid12395633 \par DR. SIMON SSENTUMBWE :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DEFENDANT \par \par }{\b\f1\fs28\insrsid12395633 BEFORE: }{\b\f1\fs28\ul\insrsid12395633 THE HON. MR. JUSTICE R. O. OKUMU WENGI}{\b\f1\fs28\insrsid12395633 \par \par \par JUDGEMENT: \par }{\f1\fs28\insrsid12395633 \par }\pard\plain \s18\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f1\fs28\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12395633 The plaintiff brought this action through her attorney, against the defendant for the value of land comprised in Kibanja Block 12 Plot 609 Rubaga Road Kampala. The background is that there were two adjacent plots 608 and 609 the former having a residential house that protruded into the latter. When the defendant purchased plot 608 and went about clearing it for a prime development he truncated the part of the building and latri n e that lay in his way. He offered the plaintiff only shs 550,000= which the plaintiff rejected, as according to him, his development was valued in excess of shs 9 million. This dispute arose due to this issue essentially, though in the end, questions we r e to be asked about Land tenure and the title of the plaintiff to any compensation. The defendant
thus denied liability contending that the plaintiff by virtue of the protruded structure he was a trespasser. When the matter came up for trial however, th e issue framed was one of compensation. Eventually each side called his own surveyor to testify. The plaintiff\rquote s attorney and the defendant also gave evidence. Mr Babumba Kyeyune, a seasoned valuation surveyor, told this court as follows:-
\par }\pard\plain \qj \li720\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f1\fs28\insrsid12395633 \'93I proceeded t o carry out the inspection on 19/12/2001 in the afternoon\'85 we were not to verify land ownership only bibanja interest. I concluded that the value of compensation including 30% disturbance was shs 9.3 million.\'94 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\f1\fs28\insrsid12395633 \par In cross examination he stated:- \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\f1\fs28\insrsid12395633 \'93The building was partly on plot 608 and partly on Bakulumpagis land\'85 The extent of encroachment is about 5 metres; length of the house is about 13 metres. \'85The 5 metres of building was his development. There was also a pit latrine of his on plot 609. There was also a store block\'85 I did give a value to the pit latrine shs 400,000/=, store block was shs 330,000/=. The building was 5.2 million. These figures are before depreciation which I put at 30%. I came to shs 5,980,000 before depreciation for the building . I would not change my valuation due to injurious affection. Demolition of part of the building will damage the user of the building.\'94 \par }\pard
\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\f1\fs28\insrsid12395633 \par On the other hand, Mr Nicholas Sali another valuer, gave evidence for the defendant. He put the value \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\f1\fs28\insrsid12395633 \'93at shs 1,400,000 for two room tenement block at shs 1.250,000 and for a dilapidated store at the rear at shs 150,000.\'94
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\f1\fs28\insrsid12395633 In cross-examination however the expert witness conceded that he did not measure the plot. He said:- \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\f1\fs28\insrsid12395633 \'93I saw the 2 \endash roomed building and the store. The building appeared to have been partly demolished. I did not value that part as it was not there I was not told that part of the property was on plot 609\'85 I cannot say it was partial or full.\'94 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\f1\fs28\insrsid12395633 \par He also told court that he did not provide for disturbanc e allowance nor had he been told that the purpose of his valuation was to determine a compensation claim. He did not value a mango tree on the property and did not see my effect on the building by the demolition despite that he noticed a missing part.
\par \par The defendant in his testimony conceded to having demolished part of the plaintiff\rquote s house that protruded into his newly acquired plot. \par \par From the evidence the essence of the case is that the two adjoining plots belonged to a family. When they were distinctl y separated by a survey it happened that the building on the land covered an area such that a small part of it lay on a different plot. Once this plot was sold by a Mortgagee the defendant was constrained to develop it and did so after destroying what he saw as a menace. The plaintiff also played the stubborn Kibanja holder and was unwilling to accept a mere shs 500,000/=. I was not impressed by the defendant\rquote s efforts if any to resolve the plaintiffs claim yet he went ahead to attack the integrity of the plaintiff\rquote s house with little care. \par \par In considering the matter I have come to agree with the valuation of Mr Babumba Kyeyune as it is more specific on compensation and presented the picture of the building before its partial though substantially dissipat ing demolition, as well as the effect of the demolition taking into account a disturbance element. I would accordingly say that the plaintiff would be entitled to compensation from the defendant in the sum of shs 1,000,000/= for the demolished part of hi s house, and shs 400,000/= for the pit latrine. Since the plaintiff lost
the use of the space where the building stood he lost land usufruct value which was valued at shs 3,000,000, which I would discount to shs 1,500,000/=. The total sum would thus be s h s 2.9 million. A disturbance allowance was put at shs 2 million which would also be discounted to shs 1 million. In consequence I enter Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for shs 3.9 million (three million nine hundred thousand only) with costs. \par \par \par \par R. O. Okumu Wengi \par }\pard\plain \s2\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\f1\fs28\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12395633 JUDGE \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f1\fs28\insrsid12395633 5/7/2004. \par \par \par \par \par \par \par 8/7/2004 \par Mbogo for Plaintiff \par Plaintiff\rquote s Attorney in Court \par Defendant present \par Senabulya Court Clerk. \par \par Ruling read in open court in presence of all parties. \par \par }{\b\f1\fs28\insrsid12395633 Sgd by: }{\f1\fs28\insrsid12395633 R. O. Okumu Wengi \par }\pard\plain \s2\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\keepn\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\f1\fs28\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12395633 JUDGE \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f1\fs28\insrsid12395633 8/7/2004. \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par }}
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.