Uganda Case Law

Kabakumba Masiko v Jesse Kasaija and 254 ors

Kabakumba Masiko v Jesse Kasaija and 254 ors (Civil Suit No. 62 of 2017) [2022] UGHCCD 154 (26 August 2022)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit No. 62 of 2017

Judge

Byaruhanga Rugyema, J

The court held that the plaintiff's pleadings do disclose a cause of action in trespass, as she is the registered owner of the suit land and trespass to land is a continuous tort. The right to sue in trespass accrues to a person in possession, and registration confers such possession. Even if the alleged unlawful entry occurred before the plaintiff acquired registration, the continuing nature of trespass allows her to maintain the action. The failure to specify the date of trespass is not fatal, as the cause of action in trespass is ongoing and the date is implied. Any defects in the pleading…

Source excerpt

• Cause Of Action
• Trespass To Land
• Continuous Tort
• Pleading Requirements

Kwesiga v Uganda Electricity Distribution Co. Limited and 2 Others (MISCELLENOUS APPLICANT EDT 19 of 2014)

Kwesiga v Uganda Electricity Distribution Co. Limited and 2 Others (MISCELLENOUS APPLICANT EDT 19 of 2014) [2019] UGIC 218 (6 September 2019)

Court

Industrial Court of Uganda

Case number

MISCELLENOUS APPLICANT EDT 19 of 2014

Judges

Charles Okoth Owor - Chairperson Electricity Disputes Tribunal, Anaclet Turyakira, - Vice Chair Person Electricty Disputes Tribunal, Eng. Dr. Moses Musaazi - Member Electricity Disputes Tribunal

The Tribunal dismissed a preliminary objection, holding that a complaint over a power line on land was a continuing trespass and not barred by limitation or prescription.

• Limitation Periods
• Trespass To Land
• Continuous Tort
• Prescription
• Compensation For Land Use
• Trespass-to-land

Lutaaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Co. Limited

Lutaaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Co. Limited (Civil Suit No. 494 of 1995) [2018] UGHCLD 45 (23 May 2018)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit No. 494 of 1995

Judge

Kawesa, J

The Defendant was in legal existence at the time the suit was instituted, as evidenced by its participation, representation by counsel, and admissions in pleadings. The objection to its existence is unsustainable and estopped by its conduct and prior Supreme Court determinations. The issue of limitation does not apply to trespass to land, which is a continuing tort, and the Supreme Court has already conclusively determined liability, remitting the matter solely for assessment of damages. Preliminary objections raised at this late stage are moot and have no merit, given the binding nature of t…

Source excerpt

• Trespass To Land
• Limitation Periods
• Company Existence
• Continuous Tort
• Estoppel
• Assessment Of Damages

Oola Lalobo v Okema Jakeo Akech

Oola Lalobo v Okema Jakeo Akech (Civil Suit No.20 Of 2004) (Civil Suit No.20 of 2004) [2008] UGHC 106 (30 September 2008)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit No.20 of 2004

The High Court allowed an appeal in a land trespass dispute, holding that continuous trespass is not barred by limitation and ordering a retrial.

• Customary Land Ownership
• Trespass To Land
• Limitation Periods
• Continuous Tort
• Judicial Notice
• Locus In Quo