Uganda Case Law

Namagembe Margaret V Serene Hotel Limited (Serene Suites Limited)

Namagembe Margaret V Serene Hotel Limited (Serene Suites Limited) (Civil Suit No. 318 of 2012) [2014] UGHCLD 144 (8 November 2014)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit No. 318 of 2012

Judge

Owiny-Dollo, J

The Plaintiff, as the registered proprietor of the suit land, holds legal possession and is entitled to bring an action in trespass against the Defendant, regardless of physical possession or occupancy by others. The Defendant's construction of a hotel, perimeter wall, and access road on the suit land without the Plaintiff's consent constitutes continuous acts of trespass, depriving the Plaintiff of her proprietary and reversionary interests. The Plaintiff proved special damages through credible oral testimony, and general damages are warranted due to dispossession. However, claims for mesne…

Source excerpt

• Trespass To Land
• Reversionary Interest
• Damages For Trespass
• Legal Possession
• Special Damages

Nalugwa & Ors v Hajati Namuleme

Nalugwa & Ors v Hajati Namuleme (Civil Suit No. 121 of 2010) [2014] UGHCLD 71 (6 August 2014)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit No. 121 of 2010

Judge

Kwesiga, J

The High Court held that the agreement covered only the retained family home and graveyard portion of the Kibanja, not the whole original holding.

• Mailo Land Title
• Specific Performance
• Reversionary Interest
• Bibanja Holder Rights
• Land Act Section 35
• Land Act Section 34

Nsimbe & Ors v Caltex (U) Ltd & Ors (Misce. Applic. N0. 144 of 2013)

Nsimbe & Ors v Caltex (U) Ltd & Ors (Misce. Applic. N0. 144 of 2013) [2013] UGHCLD 80 (3 October 2013)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Misce. Applic. N0. 144 of 2013

Judge

Bashaija, J

The court held that the applicants failed to establish any ground under Order 46 r.1 CPR to warrant setting aside the consent judgment. The alleged new evidence regarding the 4th respondent's interest was not new or previously unavailable, as the applicants were aware of the 4th respondent's status and had themselves sought to join it as a party earlier. Mistake of counsel is not a ground for review unless it is apparent on the face of the record, which was not the case here. The applicants' advocate had full instructions and authority to enter the consent, and the applicants were present whe…

Source excerpt

• Consent Judgment
• Review Of Judgment
• Mistake Of Counsel
• Estoppel
• Mailo Land
• Reversionary Interest

Wasswa and Another v Mutawe sendikwanawa

Wasswa and Another v Mutawe sendikwanawa (Civil Suit 1029 of 1995) [1997] UGHC 18 (7 February 1997)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 1029 of 1995

Judge

A.O .Ouma, J

The High Court held that the defendant, having elected to buy the reversionary interest, was estopped from relying on the lease and had to vacate the land.

• Lease Agreement
• Reversionary Interest
• Breach Of Contract
• Estoppel By Election
• Land-and-property
• Lease-agreements

Kasule & Another v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board

Kasule & Another v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Suit 751 of 1991; Civil Suit 752 of 1991) [1992] UGHC 56 (7 December 1992)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 751 of 1991 ; Civil Suit 752 of 1991

Judge

Tsekooko, J

The High Court granted a review application over ownership of Plot 536, but held that the judgment would not be automatically revised and fixed the matter for hearing.

• Review Of Judgment
• Error On Face Of Record
• Ownership Of Land
• Reversionary Interest
• Decree Holder Rights
• Review-of-judgment

United Cultivate Co. (U) Limited v United Properties Limited

United Cultivate Co. (U) Limited v United Properties Limited (Civil Appeal 1 of 1983) [1984] UGCA 1 (27 January 1984)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 1 of 1983

Judge

Lubogo V-P, Nyamuchoncho, JA, Asthana, J.A.

The Court of Appeal held that the registered proprietor of land, by virtue of holding a certificate of title, has legal possession and is entitled to sue for trespass even if not in actual occupation, provided the lessee has abandoned the property and is no longer in effective control. The evidence established that the lessee had abandoned the premises, and the defendants, not being put in possession by the lessee, were trespassers. The defendants could not rely on the lessee's title to justify their occupation. The Court further held that the omission of the word 'jointly' in the plaint did…

Source excerpt

• Trespass To Land
• Reversionary Interest
• Possession And Title
• Joinder Of Parties
• Mesne Profits