Kabuga Ranchers Limited v Kamwenge District Local Government and Another (HCT-01-LD-CS 22 of 2021) [2024] UGHC 402 (19 April 2024)

# **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT FORT PORTAL** 3 **HCT – 01 – LD – CS – 0022 OF 2021 KABUGA RANCHERS LIMITED ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFF VERSUS**

# 6 **1. KAMWENGE DISTRICT LOCAL GOVERNMENT 2. KAMWENGE DISTRICT LAND BOARD ::::::::::: DEFENDANTS BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE VINCENT WAGONA** 9 **JUDGMENT**

## **Introduction:**

12 The plaintiff a registered corporate entity brought this suit against the defendants jointly and severally seeking declaratory orders to wit: a declaration that the suit land comprised in Kibale Block 49, Plots 11 and 12 at Kabuga Hill, Kahunge Sub County, 15 Kamwenge District measuring approximately 856 hectares belongs to the plaintiff as a rightful lessee; a declaration that the letter dated 1st June 2021 by the Chief Administrative Officer of the 1st defendant was illegal, null and void and inconsequential; an order of a permanent injunction against the 2nd 18 defendant stopping her from alienating, allocating, facilitating transfer or causing a survey of the suit land or in any way dealing with the suit land and against the 1st defendant from claiming interest therein; an order directing the 2nd 21 defendant to issue a leasehold agreement and facilitate registration of the lease over the suit land to the plaintiff and complete all processes incidental to or connected to the transfer; an 24 order for payment of general damages, exemplary, punitive damages and interest


thereon from the time of accrual of the cause of action till payment in full and costs of the suit.

### **The case of the Plaintiffs:**

- 6 The plaintiffs started as a small formers group under the name Kabuga Ranchers that were later incorporated as Kabuga Rachers Limited in October 1990. Since 17th May 1982, the plaintiffs were allocated a lease compounding the previous applications into a lease offer dated 11 9 th August 2005 where the plaintiffs were granted 856 hectares. The plaintiffs have been in occupation and possession of the suit land rearing cattle, goats, and sheep and they developed the land with kraals, watering 12 wells and cattle dips and they surveyed the land, mapped it out and erected - boundaries using stones and natural trees. Subsequently, the commissioner of surveys and mapping signed and issued the plaintiffs with deed plans on 29/11/2015 - paving way for the 2nd 15 defendant to issue a lease agreement in favour of the plaintiffs upon submission of other relevant documents but the registration process did not progress. The plaintiffs were later shocked to learn that the 1st defendant had 18 authored a letter dated 1/6/2021 addressed to the chairperson of the plaintiffs accusing them of trespass and encroachment the suit land claiming that it was public - 21

# **The case of the Defendants:**

land whereas not.

The defendants claimed that 2nd 24 defendant was a lawful statutory owner and controlling authority of the suit land which at all material times had been public land.


The 2nd defendant contended that whereas the plaintiffs had applied for a lease of the suit land from the then Kabarole District, the land was not surveyed and the boundary

- 3 opening exercise to establish the size of the land was done in 2015 and 2021 respectively. That the plaintiff's application for lease was not considered as government had suspended the issuance of leases over Government/Public land to - 6 private users.

# **The reply of the Plaintiffs:**

The 2nd defendant was bound by the doctrine of estoppel. The suspension by the Ministry of Land was not applicable to the land in issue.

# **Representation and hearing:**

15 **Mr. Joseph Muhumuza Kaahwa** of M/s Kaahwa, Kafuuzi, Bwiruka & Co. Advocates appeared for the plaintiff while **Mr. Ronald Kawalya***,* a State Attorney attached to Attorney General's Chambers Fort Portal office appeared for the 18 defendants. Both counsel filed written argument which I have exhaustively considered.

#### 21 **Witnesses:**

The plaintiffs relied on the testimony of two witnesses that is; (Ruhweza Francis 24 (*PW1*) and Kasoro Apollo Rwakasengu (*PW2)*. The defendants on the other hand


relied on testimonies of three witnesses that is Turyahebwa Hanny (*DW1*), Kashaija John (*DW2*) and Byamugisha Ferdinard (*DW3*).

## **Issues:**

- 6 The following issues were framed during scheduling: - **(1)Whether the suit land comprised in Kibale Block 49, Plots 11 and 12 at Kabuga Hill, Kahunge Sub County, Kamwenge District approximately** 9 **856 hectares belongs to the plaintiffs as the rightful lessee.** - **(2)Whether the directive contained and communicated in the letter dated 19th March 2015 affected and is applicable to the suit land.** - **(3)Whether the 1st and 2nd** 12 **defendants can invoke the contents of letters dated 19th March 2015, 17th February 2021 and 6th April 2021 to deprive the plaintiff of her interests in the suit land.** - **(4)Whether the land is still under the control and management of the 1st** 15 **and 2 nd defendants within the meaning of section 59 of the Land Act Cap. 227 as amended.** - 18 **(5)Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies sought.**

## **Evidence adduced:**

**PW1 (Kasoro Apollo Rwakasengu)** testified that there are two hills - Rubaba hill and Kabuga hill - originally used for communal grazing and farming by the people 24 of Kahunge Sub County under the then Kabarole District. The government under the Ministry of Animal and Industry, Veterinary Department constructed a dipping tank

on the suit land to promote ranching in the area, which is still existent to date. In 1970, government through the same ministry started construction of Kahunge Diary 3 on the suit land which still exists to date. The plaintiffs' principle activity is livestock ranching and they have since 1982 occupied, possessed and utilized the suit land as a ranch for grazing cattle, goats, sheep, and developed the suit land with related 6 infrastructures like kraals, watering wells, cattle dips, surveyed, mapped and erected boundaries of the land with mark stones and natural trees. This is confirmed by the 2 nd defendant in its report dated 21/12/2012. The plaintiffs had started as a group of 9 farmers under the name Kabuga Ranchers that was later incorporated as Kabuga Ranchers Limited in October 1990. PW1 was the chairperson of Kabuga Ranchers from 1986 until it was incorporated in 1990 as a limited liability company where he 12 is still a Director. It was the evidence of PW1 that the plaintiffs had applied for a lease over land at Kabuga Hill and a lease offer dated 17th May 1982 (**PE2)** was issued to them, which was later compounded with the lease offer dated 11/8//2005 15 (**PE3**), for the suit land measuring 856 hectares. Later, the Commissioner Surveys and Mapping duly signed and issued the plaintiffs with the deed plans on 29th November 2015 paving way for the 2nd defendant to issue a lease agreement in 18 favour of the plaintiffs and upon submission of the same and other documents, the respective files went missing. Later the plaintiffs were accused of trespass and encroachment on the suit land on the grounds that the suit land was public land.

In cross examination PW1 accepted that PE1 dated 17/5/1982 was an application by the plaintiffs for Rural Land in Kabarole District by Kabuga Ranchers Limited and 24 it related to the suit land while PE2, was a lease offer relating to the suit land being 500 hectares offered by Kabarole District Land Board who was not a party to this


case. On the other hand PE3 dated 11/8//2005 was a lease offer to the plaintiffs by Kamwenge District Land Board in respect of the suit land. PW1 accepted that the 3 plaintiffs in the end did not enter into any lease agreement with Kamwenge District

Land Board and they did not obtain the lease agreements. In re-examination PW1 clarified that the plaintiffs lodged had two applications, originally in 2016 and 6 another application that included additional land in 2005.

**PW2 (Ruhweza Francis)** a Director and Secretary of the plaintiffs testified that the 9 suit land belonged to the plaintiffs and that it was untrue that the suit land had at all material times been public land; that the letter dated 19th march 2015 (DE3) by the Permanent Secretary Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development 12 communicating the halting of re-entry on land leased by Government and allocation of land, did not affect or relate to the suit land and that the letter was wrongly used by the defendants to deprive the plaintiffs of their land. PW2 contended that the letter 15 only affected land formerly occupied and utilized by the District, County and Sub County headquarter which was not the case with the land in dispute.

- **DW1 (Turyahebwa Hanny)** the 1st 18 defendant's Chief Administrative Officer testified that the 2nd defendant was the lawful statutory owner and controlling authority of the suit land and at all material times the suit land has been public land - and the 2nd 21 defendant holds it in public trust as per the constitution. DW1 stated that the plaintiffs applied for a lease over the suit land from the 2nd defendant on 20/08/2016. That on 5/9/2016, Kahunge sub county area committee conducted an - 24 inspection of the suit land and held a meeting with neighbors. That the plaintiffs' lease could not be processed in light of the Cabinet directive of 4/03/215 suspending


allocation and processing of public land for private use especially land at the district headquarters and formerly County and Sub County headquarters and re-entry on

- land leased by government. That on 19/2/2021, the 1st 3 defendant lodged a complaint with the Inspector General of Government to carry out investigations over the danger of the suit land being alienated and the conclusion of the investigation was that the - suit land was public land. That the 1st 6 defendant acting on the cabinet directive and the report by the IGG ordered the 2nd defendant to write to the plaintiff over the alleged trespass and this was done on 1/06/2021. In cross examination DW1 - 9 accepted that the suit land had people grazing there and the land had kraals, valley dams and trees. That the District authorized communities to plant trees there to protect the land and the seedlings were supplied by government. In re-examination - 12 DW1 stated that DE3 authored by the Permanent Secretary Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development applied to all public land in custody of Districts, Sub counties and others. The letter was communicated as a directive affecting all 15 applications for leases or leasing out public land. That the plaintiffs' applications for - the suit land in 2015 (DE1 and DE2) were therefore affected by DE3. - **DW2 (Kashaija John)***,* the Secretary for the 2 nd 18 defendant testified that the plaintiffs applied for a lease of a parcel of land neighboring the suit land in the 1980's and 1990's from the then Kabarole District Land Board and Uganda Land Commission. - 21 That on the 21/07/1992, Uganda Land Commission approved and allocated 3 square miles of land equivalent to 500 hectares under min ULC MIN. 92(a) (4) of 05/02/1992 to the plaintiffs and issued a lease offer dated 21/07/1992. That contrary - 24 to the plaintiffs' estimation and upon a practical physical survey, it was realized that the land was 856 hectares and not 500 hectares as per the allocation by Uganda Land


Commission. That in early 2000, the plaintiff applied for the land in excess of the 500 hectares and the same was granted by the lease offer dated 11/08/2005 with a 3 total acreage of 956 hectares which amended the earlier offer granted by Uganda Land Commission. That the application was handled by Kabarole District Land Board for an initial period of 5 years and was extended by the 2nd defendant, the 6 successor in title to 49 years in favour of the plaintiffs.

DW2 testified that the 2nd defendant was the lawful statutory owner and controlling

9 authority over the land in dispute comprised in Block 49, Plot 11 (89.873 hectares) and Plot 12 (731.112 hectares) Kabuga Hill, Kamwenge District and at all material time, the suit land has been public land held by the 2nd defendant as a trustee per the

- 12 199 constitution. That sometime in 2015, a preliminary survey of the suit land was conducted although the process was not concluded; upon the survey, the land was allocated two plot numbers that is 11 and 12. That on 20/08/2016, the plaintiffs - applied for a lease from the 2nd 15 defendant and on 5/9/2016, Kahunge Sub County Area land committee inspected the land and held meetings with the neigbours. That thereafter, the plaintiff's lease could not be processed in light of the Cabinet directive - 18 of 4/03/3015 that suspected allocation of public land for private use specially land at the District headquarters and formerly county and sub county headquarters and re-entry of land leased by Government. That on 17/2/2021, the 1st defendant lodged - 21 a complaint with IGG regarding the suit land and the investigations showed that the suit land was public land per the letter dated 6/4/2021. That the 1st defendant thus acted on the Cabinet directive and the report by the IGG to write to the plaintiffs - 24 stopping the trespass and encroachment on the suit land.


In cross examination DW2 stated that the suit land was vacant and not occupied by any person. There were no kraals or watering points or wells. DW2 admitted that

- 3 Kabuga Ranchers had planted trees on the suit land, that there were temporary shelters there, and a valley dam and people were using the land for grazing. The witness stated that when the plaintiffs applied for the land, it was not allocated to - 6 them. That the land was surveyed but the survey was not complete. The land has not been allocated to Kamwenge D. L. G or leased to any person or authority. That directives contained in DE3 applied to the suit land and the application by the - 9 plaintiffs for a lease for the suit land was thus rejected. That DE1 was a mere application for a lease and not a grant of the lease. - 12 In re-examination DW2 stated that the plaintiffs' applications for leaseholds contained in DE1 and DE2 were not considered due to the directive contained in DE3. That the suit land had been encroached upon and utilized, occupied and settled 15 upon illegally.

**DW3 (Byamugisha Ferdinard)** was the Senior Land Management Officer of the 1st 18 defendant who also served as Ag. Secretary District Land Board in 2016. DW3 testified that since time immemorial, the suit land has been public land which the 2nd defendant in that regard held in trust. DW3 testified that in the course of his duties, 21 he handled two land administration files relating to Kibale block 49 plot 11 and 12 at Kabuga Hill where the subject was the plaintiffs' application for a lease. That by the time the files came to the office, there was a directive in place by government 24 not to allocate any government land to any person or company until further notice or otherwise directed. DW3 stated that the plaintiffs had never had any interest in


the suit land beyond their applications to the land board for a lease that were differed. In cross examination DW3 stated that they could not proceed with the titling process

- 3 for the plaintiffs since there was a Cabinet directive stopping it. That he was not aware that the plaintiffs has kraals on the land or were grazing thereon or the fact that watering points exist. That he was not aware of the houses and shelters on the - 6 suit land. In re-examination he stated that the plaintiffs' members were freshly clearing the land and making a farm for animals to create evidence of occupation. That DE3 was a letter from the Permanent Secretary Ministry of Land Housing and - 9 Urban Development communicating a Cabinet decision not to allocate government land and that the suit land was government land under Kamwenge District Land Board.

**Locus visit:** On the 16th day of May 2023, court conducted locus visit on the suit land. It was visible from the locus visit that the suit land had temporary structures 15 and kraals. Part of the land had trees and a valley dam for water. The main activity on the land was grazing.

## 18 **Burden of Proof and Standard of proof:**

The plaintiff bears the burden to prove his/her claim on the balance of probabilities.

21 Section 101 of the Evidence Act is to the effect that whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he or she asserts must prove that those facts exist. (See also:*Kamo Enterprises*

24 *Ltd Vs. Krytalline Salt Limited, SCCA No. 8 of 2018*). The evidential burden per

 section 102 and 103 of the Evidence Act keeps shifting depending on facts as alleged by a given party to prove the existence of such facts.

#### **CONSIDERATION BY COURT:**

6 I will consider issues 1, 2, 3 and 4 concurrently since they concern the nature of interests claimed by the plaintiffs viz-a-viz the interests of the defendants. The claim by the plaintiff is that they she the rightful lessee to the suit land which is denied by 9 the defendants.

The term lessee and lessor do arise in instances where there is a lease agreement 12 which creates binding obligations between the parties, *lessor* being the owner of the land and *lessee* being the tenant. Therefore to arrive at a logical conclusion as to whether the plaintiff is a lessee to the suit land, court must first establish whether 15 there exists a valid and subsisting lease agreement between the plaintiff as a lessee and the lessor (2nd defendant).

- 18 A lease by definition connotes a contract by which one conveys real estate, equipment or facilities for a specified term and for a specified rent. The agreement by nature is executed between the owner of the land (lessor) and the tenant (lessee) - 21 for exclusive possession for a determined period of time. (See: *Isingoma Edward v The Registered Trustees of the Church of Uganda and anor, HCT – 01 – CV – CS – 0025 of 2017).*The consideration for the lease must be stated and must be lawful - 24 within the confines of the law and a date for determination/expiry of the lease clearly stated and the manner of renewal if any. *(See Isingoma Edward, supra).* A lease by nature merely offers permission to the lessee to keep in lawful possession of the

**11 |** P a g e

leased and upon expiration; the lessee is at law treated as a tenant at sufferance who may be evicted at will by the lessor.

The plaintiffs' claim on the suit land comprised in Block 49 Plots 11 and 12 measuring 856 acres is premised on their application for a lease over the same in 6 1982 (PE1) and a lease offer granted to them on 21/7/1992 by Uganda Land Commission (PE2) which offer was renewed in 2005 by Kamwenge District Land Board (PE3). The applicable legal regime by the time the first lease offer (PE2) was 9 issued is the Public Lands Act, 1969 which had renamed what was formally Crown land and vested it in the Uganda Land Commission. Under Section 25 of the Act, the Uganda Land Commission was empowered to make a grant in freehold or 12 leasehold of public land. Subsequently, under Section 1 of The Land Reform Decree of 1975, all land in Uganda was declared public land to be administered by the Uganda Land Commission in accordance with the Public Lands Act of 1969, subject 15 to such modifications as were necessary to bring the Act into conformity with the Decree. Therefore at the time the respondent was granted the lease offer, the land in issue was public land and there is evidence to that effect.

PW1 testified that the suit land was formerly used for grazing by members of the plaintiff. Further that government under the ministry of Animal Industry and 21 Veterinary Department had constructed a dipping tank on the suit land which is still existent to date to promote ranching in the area. That in 1970, government through the ministry of Industry and Veterinary Department started construction of Kahunge

24 Diary which still exists to date on the suit land. The nature of these developments demonstrated that the land in issue was public land used by the community for


grazing and not the property of an individual or individuals. It is thus my finding that the suit land is public land previously managed by Uganda Land Commission now under the 1st 3 defendant by virtue of Article 240 and 241 of 1995 Constitution

- as amended and section 59 of the Land Act as amended. - 6 Under Section 23 (2) of the Public Lands Act, the Uganda Land Commission could grant statutory leases to urban authorities and the urban authorities could then lease out to individuals. The Uganda Land Commission and the Urban Authorities worked - 9 independently from each other. In the current suit, there is no lease agreement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant as the custodian of public land in Kawenge District. There is also no lease agreement between the plaintiff and Uganda - 12 Land Commission. The plaintiffs however seem to argue that their claim as a rightful lessee stems from the lease offer granted to them by Uganda Land Commission and Kamwenge District Land Board. The arising fundamental question is whether a lease - 15 offer constitutes a lease agreement conferring rights of a lessee and a lessor.

It is a settled principle of law that a lease by nature connotes an agreement between 18 the lessor and the lessee over the land in issue. Being a contract, other principles of contract do apply among others, an offer, and acceptance of the other, payment of consideration and certainty of the subject matter of the contract. That is, the land to 21 be leased out should be clearly ascertained and marked and clearly described in the lease agreement without recourse to extrinsic evidence. In case of titled land, the same must be surveyed and mark stones erected in order for a lease to come into

24 effect.


In this case, the offer although accepted by the respondent could not result into a valid lease until the survey and all other formalities were done. In this case PE2 the

- 3 first lease offer was conditional. Kabuga Ranchers was to be given a lease for an initial period of 5 years from one month after survey. It is admitted by the plaintiffs that after the first offer, there was no survey. PW1 stated that the survey was done - 6 in 2015 and they secured deed prints. This means that the first offer did not materialize and there was no lease created. Regulation 10 of *The Public Lands Rules S. I 201-1* (revoked in March 2001 by rule 98 of *The Land Regulations, S.1. 16 of* - 9 *2001*), being the law in force at the time, an offeree of a lease on public land was a mere tenant at sufferance and he or she could only acquire interest at registration. It provided that: *Any occupation or use by a grantee or lessee of land which the* - 12 *controlling authority has agreed to alienate shall until registration of the grant or lease be on sufferance only and at the sole risk of such grantee or lessee.* Therefore since no survey and registration was done, Kabuga Ranchers remained a tenant at 15 sufferance on the suit land and could be evicted by the lessor at any time. - The plaintiff also relied on PE3 being the lease offer dated 11th August 2005 granted 18 to the plaintiff. Under the offer, the plaintiff was to survey the land in issue to create a lease. PW1 testified that the survey was done in 2015 after the expiration of the lease offer dated 11th August 2005. My under understanding from the reading of PE3 21 is that the survey was to be done within a month after the offer and thereafter a lease of five years would be issued. In this case the survey was done 5 years after the expiry of the offer. The principle of law that the land automatically reverts to the 24 lessor came into play. (See: **Dr. Adeodanta Kekitiinwa and three others v. Edward Maudo Wakida, C. A. Civil Appeal No 3 of 2007; [1999] KALR 632).** Therefore since the initial 5 years indicated in PE3 expired on in August 2010, the


**14 |** P a g e

land reverted to the lessor (Kamwenge District Land Board) who had the absolute discretion either to issue a fresh lease or not and the plaintiff remained a tenant at 3 sufferance with no rights acquired in the land. *(See:* **Remon v. City of London Real Property Co. Ltd., [1921] 1 KB 49, 58) and Halsburys Laws of England (4th Edition) Vol. 18 para. 16).**

Be that as it may, even if I were to take the narrow view that the offer was still valid, the question remains **whether the lease offer created a binding lease agreement between the plaintiffs and the 1st** 9 **defendant.**

# Section 1 of the Land Act defines "leasehold land tenure" to mean the holding of 12 land for a given period from a specified date of commencement, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by the lessor and lessee, the incidents of which are described in section 3, and includes a sublease. Section 3 (5) provides that 15 Leasehold tenure is a form of tenure—(a) created either by contract or by operation of law; (b) the terms and conditions of which may be regulated by law to the exclusion of any contractual agreement reached between the parties; (c) under which 18 one person, namely the landlord or lessor, grants or is deemed to have granted

- another person, namely the tenant or lessee, exclusive possession of land usually but not necessarily for a period defined, directly or indirectly, by reference to a specific - 21 date of commencement and a specific date of ending; (d) usually but not necessarily in return for a rent which may be for a capital sum known as a premium or for both a rent and a premium but may be in return for goods or services or both or may be - 24 free of any required return. Therefore a lease under the Land Act is created by contract or operation of the law. In this case there is no lease agreement between the


plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The plaintiff cannot claim to be a lawful lessee in the absence of a subsisting lease agreement.

In addition, having found that the land in issue was public land, the land is vested in the 1st defendant by virtue of Section 59 of the Land Act Cap 227 as amended and

- Article 240 and 241 of the 1991 Constitution. Therefore, the 1st 6 defendant as a holder of this land for the benefit of the public is vested with powers to either grant a lease or not depending on the prevailing circumstances and the legal regime in place. It - 9 was the evidence of DW1, DW2 and DW3 that in 2016, the plaintiff applied for a lease over the suit land (DE1, DE2) and when the members of the 1st defendant sat, a decision was made not to issue the lease on ground that there was a decision by - 12 cabinet (communicated in DE3) prohibiting issuance of such leases on public land. That it was on that basis that the approval of the plaintiffs' application was deferred. - 15 It was submitted for the plaintiffs that the directives contained in the letter (DE3) did not apply to the land in issue. The plaintiffs contended that the letter only affected land formerly occupied and utilized by the District, County and Sub County 18 headquarter which was not the case with the land in dispute.

I have examined the contents of DE3 which states as follows:

**RE-ENTRY ON LAND LEASED BY GOVERNMENT AND ALLOCATION OF LAND AT THE DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS** 24 **AND FORMERLY COUNTY AND SUB COUNTY HEADQUARTERS**


**I have been directed to inform you that on 4/3/2015, Cabinet, headed by the President directed to stop all land allocations / processing of** 3 **applications for private use all land at District Headquarters, formerly county and sub-county Headquarters and re-entry of land leased by Government.**

**This circular therefore serves to direct you not to entertain and stop with immediate effect all land allocations / processing of application for** 9 **private use all land based at District Headquarters, formerly county and sub-county headquarters and re-entry of land leased by Government.**

12 **The District Land officer and The Secretary District Land Board are to ensure compliance with this directive by not processing such transactions.**

It is my understanding that the Cabinet directives communicated by DE3 applied to all land based at District Headquarters, formerly county and sub-county headquarters 18 and land leased by Government, without exception, which included the land in dispute. If the plaintiffs had a different understanding, they should have sought clarification from the author of DE3 before coming to Court.

Further, under Section 59 of the Land Act as amended read together with regulation 24 (5) of the Land Regulations, the land board reserves the right to either approve the allocation or not with reasons. In this case the 1st 24 defendant clearly indicated that the land in issue was public land and there was a cabinet decision in place prohibiting


issuances of leases on public land. I find that the 1 st defendant was within her mandate to differ the plaintiffs' application on this basis, and from the evidence the 3 plaintiffs' application is considered as still pending.

It is thus my finding that since the plaintiff has no valid lease, any activities on the land without the knowledge and consent of the 1st 6 defendant as the landlord can be classified as trespass. The Chief Administrative Officer of the 2 nd defendant was within his right to write to the plaintiffs a letter complaining of encroachment on 9 public land. I therefore resolve the issues 2, 3 and 4 in the affirmative and in issue

one in the negative and the plaintiffs' suit fails at this stage.

## 12 **Remedies:**

The plaintiffs are not entitled to any of the remedies sought. This suit is hereby 15 dismissed for lack of merit with the following orders:

- **1. A declaration doth issue that the suit land comprised in plots 11 and 12 Block 49 at Kabuga, Kahunge – Kamwenge District is public land lawfully held in trust as such by the 1 st** 18 **defendant.** - **2. A permanent injunction is hereby issued restraining the 1st defendant from issuing a leasehold tile over the same to any private person or for** 21 **any private use.** - **3. A permanent injunction is hereby issued restraining the plaintiff and their members or any other person from further developments or** 24 **activities on the suit land or use of the same without the consent of the defendants.**


## **4. The costs of the suit are awarded to the defendants.**

**I so order.**

Vincent Wagona

## **High Court Judge / Fortportal**

**Date: 19/04/2024**

**19 |** P a g e