Kiconco Medard V Hon. Persis Namuganza & 148 Others (Consolidated Civil Suits No. 1036 of 2018 & No. 165 of 2019) [2019] UGHCLD 56 (4 October 2019)

# THEREPUBLICOFUGANDA INTHEHIGHCOURTOFUGANDA LANDDIVISIONSITTINGATNAKAWA CONSOLIDATEDCIVILSUITSNO.1036OF2018&CIVILSUIT NO.165OF2019.

KICONCOMEDARD................................................ PLAINTIFF

#### VERSUS

#### HON. PERSISNAMUGANZA&148ORTHERS.... DEFENDANTS

### JUDGMENT

#### BEFOREHONJUSTICETADEOASIIMWE.

Thebriefbackgroundofthesuitisthattheplaintiffisthe registeredproprietorofthelandcomprisedinKyadondoBlock 206plot671Mpererwehavingpurchasedthesamefrom Paul KatabaziBitarabeho(theadministratoroftheestateoftheLate PaulBitarabeho)in2013andcompletedpaymentin2016. The certificate oftitle was transferred in his names on the 29/4/2016. Atthetimeofpurchasetherewere17persons introduced to him as trespassers with who commenced negotiations to settle through compensation. The plaintiff alleges thatwhile compensating some ofthe original17 occupants,the3rdto147thdefendantsappearedandpresented

agreements claiming to be compensated as well for their Bibanja interests they purchased from Chrisper Bitarabeho hence this suit

In the original suit, the Plaintiff originally sued the $3^{\mbox{\scriptsize rd}}$ to $19^{\mbox{\scriptsize th}}$ defendants for trespass, the 1st and 2nd for injunction, damages and the 20th defendant for failure to demolish illegal structures to his land. Before the commencement of hearing, an application no.341 of 2019 was filled by the applicants seeking to join the original 20 defendants as co-defendants. The said application was not opposed by the respondents and was allowed hence adding 128 defendants to the original 20 defendants making them 148 defendants.

It was however, bought to the attention of court that there were 3 suits (Civil suit no. 1036 of 2018, civil suit no 165 of 2019 and civil suit no.10 of 2012 for and against the plaintiff calls for consolidation of the cases since they all relate to the same dispute. All the parties agreed on the need for consolidation to resolve the issues at once. An order for consolidation was granted by court to consolidate the 3 cases. However before consolidation of the suits was effected, civil suit number 10 of 2012 was withdrawn hence consolidation off C S NO. 1036 OF 2018 AND CS NO 165 OF 2019. Subsequently following the

$\overline{2}$

consolidation,orderthe numberofdefendants moved to upwardsfrom 20to149withAttorneyGeneralbeingaddedas the149thdefendant. Ascanbegatheredfrom thepleadingsin civilsuit165of2019,theplaintiffsuedattorneygeneralfor compensation overthe same land,permanentinjunction, generaldamages,exemplarydamagescostsandinterest.

AllThedefendantsexceptthe2nddefendantfilledtherewritten statementsofdefencedenyingalltheseclaimsbytheplaintiff. Subsequentlytheplaintiffalsowithdrewthecaseagainstthe 3rd,4th,5th.5th,6th.8th,9th,10th,12th.13th,15th,16th,17th, 18thdefendantandthesuitproceededagainsttheremaining defendants.

Atschedulingthefollowingfactswereagreedupon;

- a)ThesuitlandiscomprisedinKyadondoBlock206plot671 Mpererwe,KampalaDistrict. - b)Theplaintiffistheregisteredproprietorofthesuitland comprisedinKyadondoBlock206plot671Mpererwe, KampalaDistrict. - c)The7th,11th,14th,19th to147th defendantsholdBibanja salesagreementforLusanja,WakisoDistrict.

d)The148thdefendantischargedwiththephysicalplanning ofKampalacityundersection7oftheKCCAAct,2011 whose duties are to regulate allmatters to do with physicalplanning within Kampala including but not restrictedtoapprovalofplansandordrawingsforall permanentand temporarystructures,renovations and alterations.

#### ISSUES

Thefollowingissueswereagreeduponbythepartiesfor determinationbythiscourt;

- 1)Whetherthe 1st defendantincited the 3rd to 147th defendantstounlawfullysettleandoccupythesuitland. - 2)Whetherthe149thdefendantissueddirectivesforthe3rd to147thdefendanttostayandremainonthesuitland - 3)Whetherthe 148th defendantabdicated its duties as providedbyunderthelaw - 4)Whetherthe7th,11th,14th,19th to147th defendantsare trespassersonthesuitland - 5)Whatremediesareavailabletotheparties.

Atthehearing,theplaintiffwasrepresentedcounselBabu Rashid,theitsdefendantbycounselKumbugaRichard,the2nd-147th defendants by Kiwanuka Abdallah,LuyimbaziElias NalukolaandcounselLukwagoEliaswhilecounselByaruhanga DennisrepresentedKCCA.

Counselfortheplaintiffraisedapreliminaryissueinwhichhe soughtcertainremediestobegrantedagainstpartieswho neverfilled a defence. He submitted that2nd to the 18th defendantsdidnotfileadefenceaftertheyhadbeenservedby theplaintiff. Hesubmittedthatunder0rder6rule10ofthecivil proceduretheconsequencesofnotfillingadefenceisthatthe courtshallproceedtohearthesuitasifthedefendantsfilled thedefenceandthatthoseparticulardefendantsarepresumed nottohavegivenadefencetocountertheplaintiffsclaim.

Hefurtherprayedthatcourtentersjudgementagainstthem a factthatwouldbereflectedintheremediesgrantedbycourt underissuefive.

WhereasIagreewithcounselfortheplaintiffthatonceaparty doesnotfileadefencecourtproceedsasifthepartyhadfilled a defence as perorder6 rule 10 above,this does not automatically entitle the parties the remedies and orders

soughtintheentirecaseagainstsuchdefendants. Theorder simplymeansthatcourtwillproceedtoresolvetheissuesat handonthebasisoftheplaintiff'scaseanddeterminewhether acaseismadeoutbyapartywhohasfilledthepleadings. The factandlawstillremainthathewhoallegesmustproveand thereforetherulecitedbytheplaintiffs'counselissubjectto thisruleofevidence. Therefore,thepreliminaryissueraisedby the plaintiff's counselwillbe resolved by court while determiningthemeritsofthecaseagainstthedefendantswho neverfilledadefence. Thereforewillnotmakeadetermination onthismatterraisedbutproceedtoresolvetheissuesas framedbytheparties.

#### Issue1

## Whetherthe1stdefendantincitedthe3rd to147th defendantsto unlawfullysettleandoccupythesuitland.

Asfarasthisissueisconcerned,counselfortheplaintiff submitted thatthe 1st defendantincited the 3rd to 147th defendantstosettleonhislandunlawfullyandtooccupythe same. Counselsubmittedthatthe1stdefendantheldameeting onthe5thSeptember2016onthesuitlandandlistenedtoonly oneside. Thattheplaintiffwentanextramiletonotifythe1st defendantabouttheunfairactshehad donethrough his lawyersasperD.exh. No.1. Counselfurthersubmittedthatthe

1st defendantfailed to adduce evidence to disprove the plaintiff'sclaim sinceshefailedtoevencomplywithcourt's directivetoproducedocumentsaboutthisverymatterduring crossexamination.

Inreply,CounselKumbugaRichardforthe1stdefendantrelied on the 1st defendant's written statementofdefence and submittedthatthe1stdefendantasthestateministerforlands waspetitionedbysomedefendantsabouttheharassmentfrom theplaintiffinrelationtothesuitlandandsheaccordinglymet them toinvestigatethecomplaint. Thatsheequallyreceiveda complaintD.exh. No.1from theplaintiff'slawyersrequesting herinherofficialcapacitytoheartheirside. Butbeforeshe couldaccordtheplaintiffsahearing,shelearntthatthematter wasasubjectofcourtproceedingsandoptedout. Counsel submittedthattheactsofthe1stdefendantwerenotoutside hermandateastheStateMinisterforlands.

UnderSection.101oftheevidenceAct,whenapersonisbound toprovetheexistenceofanyfact,itissaidthattheburdenof proofliesonthatperson. Inthiscase,theburdenofprooflies ontheplaintifftoprovetheincitementbythe1stdefendant.

ToinciteaccordingtotheBlack'sLawDictionary,8thEdition,

page830meanstoprovokeorstirupsomeonetocommita crime.

Accordingtotheevidenceonrecordthefirstdefendantwas invitedbysomeofthedefendants. Thedocumentaryevidence exhibitedincourtshowsthat1stwasinvitedbybothpartiesas aministerofstateforlandmatterstointerveneinthedisputes onthesuitland. Shemanagedtomeetthedefendantsaspart ofherinquiryandadvisedthemtostayonthelandpendingher investigationsinthematter. Theissueofnotmeetingthe plaintiffwas clarified by the 1st defendantin hercrossexamination and herwritten statementofdefence to be existenceofthecourtcasewhichledhertoterminateher inquiryprematurelybutherintentionwastomeetbothparties.

From theaboveevidence,itisclearthe1stdefendantdidnot concludeherinvestigationsandassuchcouldnothavetaken anydecisionthatwouldamounttoincitementasalleged. There isnoevidencetoprovethatwhatevershedidwasinherprivate capacity. Onthecontrary,thereisevidencethatshewasinvited inherofficialcapacityasaministerofstateforlandsandthus whatever wrong action and/or omissions are actionable againsttheemployer.

Therewasnosufficientevidence adducedbytheplaintiffto therequisitestandardthatthe1stdefendantindeedincitedthe

3rdto147thdefendanttosettleandoccupythesuitlandsince thesaidpersonswerefoundonthelandwhentheminister visitedthearea. Itiscourtsviewthatevenifitwereevidenced thatsheaskedthemtostayontheland,itwassimplyanadvice tothepartiespendinginvestigationsthatwereovertakenby thiscourtcaseandnothingmore.

Ithereforefindthatthe1stdefendant'sinvolvementintheland matterwasinherofficialcapacityasaministerofstatefor landmattersandshedidnotincitethe3rdto147thdefendantto settleandoccupyandstayonthesuitland.

Ithereforefindthatthe1stdefendantdidnotincitethe3rdto 147th defendanttooccupyandstayonthesuitland. The1st issueisansweredinthenegative.

BeforeIproceedtoresolvethe2nd issue,thereisneedto determinethecaseagainstthe2nddefendantwherenoissue wasframedbytheparties.

The2nd defendantHON rosemaryNansubugaSenindewas suedbytheplaintiffforapermanentinjunction,damages,costs andinterest.

InabidetoprovetheircasePw1testifiedbeforecourtthatthe 2nddefendantequallyincitedthe3rdtothe147thdefendantto settleonhislandandcausedhimfinanciallossduetofailureto setupanindustrialpark. Theplaintiffsneverproducedfurther evidencetoprovehowtheministerincitedthepeoplewhowere alreadyontheplaintiff'slandtosettlethere. Incourtsviewthe evidenceoftheplaintiffaloneisnotsufficientproofofthe allegedfacts. Onewouldhaveexpectedevidenceofacriminal casefiledagainsttheministerorevenproducedevidenceofa reportto thelocalauthorities. Therewasalso no written instructionsfrom theministerorderingthepeopletostayon thelandwhatsoeveraswasalleged. Theplaintiff'sevidence thereforefallsshortofthestandardofproofrequiredincivil caseshence failure to prove hiscase on the balance of probabilitiesagainstthe2nddefendantaswell.

### ISSUE2

# Whetherthe149th defendantissueddirectivesforthe3rd to <sup>147</sup>thdefendanttostayandremainonthesuitland

CounselfortheplaintiffsubmittedthatthePresidentofthe RepublicofUgandaaftertheevictionvisitedthesuitlandand condoledwiththeevictedpersonsandfurtherdirectedthat theyremainonthelandsubjecttoinvestigationsandthatthere werenoinvestigationsthatweremadeeventually. Thatsuch

submissions / utterances by the President encouraged people/defendants to remain on the plaintiff's land thus violating his constitutional right to own and enjoy his land.

In response counsel for the 149<sup>th</sup> defendant submitted that the President has never settled anyone on the land and that there was no Directive made by him allowing anyone to settle on the disputed land.

This court has considered the evidence of the plaintiff on record against the 149<sup>th</sup> defendant. The gist of his claim is that the president of Uganda issued directives that trespassers should stay on the land pending investigations which have not been done to date. Indeed when court visited locus and two tents from the office of the prime minister were found on land occupied by the some of the defendants. Courts understanding of this piece of evidence is that the presidential directive did not amount to giving/ donating land to any person but an interim measure pending investigation of the matter.

This interpretation of the plaintiff's evidence by court is supported by the evidence of DW9 Edrisa Sseremba who testified in this court and stated that "the president didn't give us land. He told us to be on the land temporarily as the matter

$\overline{11}$

#### *is investigated'.*

The other piece of evidence in support of temporary stay through DW11 Birungi Irene Mugisha an employee with state house who o explained to court that she went with the president to the suit land where he educated people in regard to their rights and that he advised that the matter should be subjected to investigations and handled under the law. That he advised and directed that demolitions be halted until the commission probes in to the matter. That He went ahead to temporary shelter and food aive the victims the $\overline{as}$ investigations were going on. She finally testified that she was not aware if the commission gave a report.

The plaintiff did not adduce any evidence to rebut the defence evidence of DW9 and DW11. There was no evidence to support the fact that an official directive was made or issued by H. E the President of Uganda that allowed the 3<sup>rd</sup> to 147<sup>th</sup> defendant to take or remain on the land. The evidence of DW11 and DW9 clearly shows that the president expressed sympathy towards the victims of the eviction and such sympathy did not imply any directive to allow the defendants to take the suit land but rather a temporary stay on the land pending the investigations of the matter which investigations included this court's determination of issues at hand. The suit land was therefore never donated to anyoneforownershippurposes. Ihavealsonotedthatnoneof thedefendantsclaim on theland wasbased on eithera donationorencouragementfrom thepresident. Theirclaim is forownershipofBibanjaonthesuitland. Thisisthereforenota caseofcompulsoryacquisitionoflandbygovernmentwhere compensationtoalandownerisapre-liquisite. Ithereforefind thatthecaseagainstthe149th defendantlacksmeritonthe balanceofprobabilitiesandthesameisherebydismissed. Thisissuealsofails.

### ISSUE3

# Whetherthe148th defendantabdicateditsdutiesasprovided underthelaw

The148th defendantistheKampala CapitalcityAuthority (KCCA)whosemandateisestablishedundertheKCCAActof 2011. CounselfortheplaintiffsubmittedthattheAuthority abscondeditsdutyundersection7(k)oftheKCCAact. He submittedthatDW13whowastheDeputyDirectorPhysical Planningadmittedthatacomplaintwasraisedtothem on illegalstructuresonthesuitlandandthesameletterthe plaintiffrequestedadministrativeactiontodemolishtheillegal structuresbutthe148thdefendantdidnotrespondasrequired bythelaw. CounselcitedthecasesofMulutaJosephVKatama SylvanSCCANo.11of1999andOworiBoniface&12OrsHCCS

NO.360of2013wherecourtheldthatKampalaCapitalCity Authorityhasthedutytoenforcebuildingpermissionsand where there is non-compliance and construction without permission,theAuthoritycandemolishthestructuresonthe landwithoutanycompensation.

Inreply,CounselByaruhangaDennisforthe148th defendant submittedthatatthetimethecomplaintwasraisedbythe plaintiff,therewasacourtdisputeandatemporaryinjunction. Thatthedisputeisstillpendinginthiscourtatthemoment. He furthersubmittedthatduetothecourtcases,KCCAcouldnot interferewiththeon-goingcourtprocessesasareasonfor failuretotakeappropriatesteps.

ThiscourtisawarethatKampalaCapitalcityAuthority(KCCA) isaGovernmententityestablishedbytheKampalaCapitalCity Act2010 and itismandated to handlephysicalplanning mattersinKampalaasastatutoryduty. Thelawrequiresthat anenforcementnoticebeissuedbytheAuthorityinsuch circumstanceswherethereareillegalstructuresonlandunder itsjurisdictioninlinewithSection46ofthePhysicalPlanning Act2010whichprovidesasfollows;-

1). A localphysicalplanning committee shallserve an enforcementnoticeonanowner,occupierofdeveloperofthe

land,intheform specifiedintheNinthSchedulewherethe committeeissatisfiedthatthedevelopmentoflandhasbeen oris being carried outwithoutthe required development permission,orthatanyofthe conditions ofdevelopment permissiongrantedunderthisacthavenotbeencompliedwith.

TheaboveprovisionmandatestheAuthoritytointervenein suchsituationswherethereareillegalconstructionsonland. However,KCCAcouldnothavedealtwithsuchstructureson landamidstconflictsofownershipandcourtordersinplace restraininganypersontointerferewiththestatusquo. Paul KatabaziBitarabeho (courtwitness no 2)in his evidence testifiedthattherewereaseriesofcasesatthetimesuchas CivilSuitNo.625of2014whichwereongoing. Hetestifiedthat courthadgrantedhim atemporaryinjunctionrestrainingany onefrom interferingwiththesuitland. Similarlyevidenceon record,clearlyshowsthattherearenocleardemarcations betweenKampalaandwakisointhisarea. Theissuewas clarifiedbyajointsurveyreportattheordersofcourt,which clearlyputitunderthemanagementofKCCA. Theobservation ofcourtisthatalldefendantsdidnotknowwherethesuitland falls. Thissituationwascompoundedbyanumberofdisputes andcourtordersoverthesuitland.

Therefore,theplaintiffshouldnothaveexpectedthe148th defendant(KCCA)to disobeyacourtorderto enforceits mandate. Ifindtheactionsofthe148thdefendantinfailingto demolishtheillegalstructuresamidsttheconfusionarisingout oflanddisputes,courtordersandtheexactlocationofland forgivableinthecircumstances. Thisissueisalsoansweredin thenegative.

### ISSUE4

## Whetherthe7th,11th,14th,19thto147thdefendantsare trespasseronthesuitland.

Inrespecttothisissue,itwasthesubmissionofcounselfor theplaintiffbasingontheevidenceoftheplaintiff(pw1)that when he purchased the suitland ithad only 17 known trespasserswhomheintendedtocompensateafteracquisition oftheland. However,by2016whenheconcludedthepayment oftheland,thetrespassershadgrownto147,allclaimedto haveboughttheirBibanjainterestsfrom ChrispaBitarabeho they allclaimed to be in possession ofBibanja interest agreements. Counselfortheplaintifffurthersubmittedthatthe actualadministratorofthesuitlandwasPaulBitarabeho(court witnessNO.2)andallsalesbyChrisperBitarabehowereillegal. Thatthiswasbecauseofthecardinalprincipleoflawthatone cannotpassabettertitlethanwhattheyhaveandonecannot

passtitleoverwhattheydon'thave. HecitedGodfreyOjwang VsWilsonBagonzaCivilAppealNo.25of2002todraw a foundationforhisclaim. Counselfurthersubmittedthatthe geographicalorientationofthelandasperthejointsurvey report(PExh.10)clearlyshowedthatthesuitlandwaslocated inKampala-Mpererweandnotlusanja-Wakisoasclaimedbyall thedefendantswitnesseswhom heclaimsaretrespassers. Counselforthe Plaintiffalso relied the evidence ofPW2 ChrisperBitarabehothepersonfrom whom thedefendants claim tohavepurchasedtheirinterests. Shegaveevidenceof the effectthatshe neversold anyone Kibanja overthe plaintiff'slandatSekanyonyi-Mpererwe. Theplaintiff'scounsel alsoreliedonevidenceofPW3whotestifiedastheLC1of Sekanyonyi-Mpererweandconfirmedtocourtthatthe3rdto 147thdefendantswerenotresidentsofhisareaandthathedid notsignanysaleagreementofthekibanjabelongingtoanyof thesaiddefendants. Counselfortheplaintifffinallysubmitted thatDW1,DW2,DW3,DW5,DW6,DW7,DW8,DW9DW10,D12, DW14,DW15,DW16 and DW17 who gave evidence and tenderedinagreementswhichclearlyshow thattheBibanja theypurchasedaresituateinLusanjainWakisoDistrict.

Ontheotherhand,Counselforthe3rdto147thdefendant submittedthatbythetimeofpurchaseofthesuitland,the7th, 11th,12th,19thto127thdefendantswereinfulloccupationof thesuitlandintheirrespectiveBibanja. Thatatthetimeofthe purchasetheplaintiffwasfullyawareoftheseinterestsonhis landbutignoredthem. Counselsubmittedthatduringcrossexamination,theplaintiffadmitted thattherewasno sale agreementinrespecttothesuitlandanddidnotevenbotherto makeassearchforthesaidlandtoascertainwhetherthere wereinterestsatthetimeandhadhedonethesearchhewould havefoundthedefendantsonthesuitland. Counselfurther submittedthattheplaintiffhasneverbeeninpossessionofthe suitlandandthusisnotentitledtotheremediessought. He referredtothevariouspurchaseagreements,whichshowed thatthedefendantswereonthesuitlandwaybackin2011and yetthedefendantwasregisteredonthesuitlandjustin2016. CounselreliedonthecaseofNabanobaDesiranta&AnorV KayiwaJosephHCCSNo.496of2005whichcourtdetermined thatapurchasewithoutdueinquiriesamountstofraud.

Courtspositionisthatenjoymentofone'sprivatepropertyisa constitutionalright. Itisanoffenceoftrespasstointerfere withone'srighttoproperty. ThatiswhyTrespassisstilla criminaloffenceinthelawsofUganda. Itisintendedtopunish thosewhointerferewithone'sprivateownershiptoproperty. Trespass consists ofany unjustifiable intrusion upon or interferencewiththelandinpossessionofanotherandcanbe oneofthefollowing:

- 1. Enteringuponalandinpossessionofanotherwithout permission. - 2. Remainingonlandenteredwithpermissionafterrequest to movehasbeenmade(e.g.being sentawaybya landlordandyourefusetogoaway,itistrespasstoland). - 3. Placingorthrowingawayanyobjectuponitwithoutany lawfuljustification.

Thecommonestform oftrespasstolandisthepersonalentry bythedefendantontothelandorbuildingoccupiedbythe plaintiff. Thetrespassmustbevoluntarilysothatifapersonis carriedorforcedintoanotherlandonhispartthereisno trespassaswasheld inSmith VsStone.08 F.2D 15(9th Cir.1962)

TheSupremeCourtinthecaseofJustineE. M. NLutaayavs. StirlingCivilEng. Civ. AppealNo.11of2002,heldthattrespass tolandoccurswhenapersonmakesanunauthorisedentry upon another's land and thereby interfering with another person'slawfulpossessionoftheland.

Itshouldbenotedthatapersonwhosuesintrespassisa personinpossessionoftheland. Possessionmayeitherbe possessioninlaw,Possessioninfactorimmediatepossession. InJustineE. M. NLutaayavs. SterlingCivilEng(supra)itwas

heldthatpossessiondoesnotonlymeanphysicaloccupation butalsoincludesconstructivepossession.

Inthiscaseevidenceshowsthatsomedefendantpurchased theirBibanjainterestsfrom ChrisperBitarabehoandothers from amongstthemselves. Thisisevidencebytheagreements whichwereadmittedonrecord. However,thecommonsellerto themajorityischrisperBitarabeho. Nosinglepieceofevidence isonrecordtoshowthatanyofthedefendantsboughtland from theoriginalownerofthelandortheadministrator(Paul katabaziBitarabeho).

ThesaidcrisperBitarabehotestifiedinthiscourtaspw3and statedthatshedidnotsaletoanyofthedefendantsthelandin dispute atSekanyonyi-Mpererwe,which in herview isthe plaintiff'slandandinsistedthatshesoldsomeoftheBibanjain questiontosomeofthedefendantsinadifferentareafromthe landindispute. Atlocusshewasabletopointatthelandshe soldtosomeofthedefendantswhichwasindeedfaraway from thesuitlandatadistanceevenbeyondcourtsview. Secondly some the defendant's agreements which were admittedincourtindicatethelandtheyboughtwasinlusanja wakisodistrict.

HoweverbasingonthejointsurveyreportPEXh10;andthe

locusvisitit,itbecameclearthatthesuitlandwassituatein Mpererwe Kampala district and not in Lusanja as the defendantswantedcourttobelieve.

AtlocusIobservedthatthelandindisputewassituatein MpererweKampaladistrict. Ithoweverborderslandinlusanja wherethedefendant'sagreementsfall. Therewerea few structuresonthesuitland,twotentsandmostofthelandwas vacant. Ialso observed thatsome properties/structures belongingtopeople(partiesandnon-parties)tothesuitwere affected byboundariesofthesuitland. Thosethatwere affectedbytheboundariesareNalongokavumaIddi,kiihera musefaru,KambaDaniel,EliAyoti,luyimaPatricandkirunda Ivan.

PW3 Ssejemba Henry,the LC1 chairman ofSekanyonyi-Mpererwe (wherethesuitlandissituate)testifiedincourt andconfirmedthatthe3rdto147thdefendantswerenot residentsofhisareaandthathehadneversignedanysale agreementofthe kibanja belonging to any ofthe said defendants. Theonlypicturethatcanbeclearlydrawnfrom thisevidenceisthatthedefendantsweremisledandconfused abouttheexactlocationofthelandtheybought. Theirproblem

wascompoundedbytheignoranceofthechairmanLC1of lusanja DW3(kibuka)who continued to administerland in KampalayethewaschairmanofLusanjainWakisodistrict.itis thereforenotsurprisingthathesignedonagreementsforthe saleoflandinKampalaandnotLusanja. Thisheconfirmedin courtandatlocus.

HoweverevenifthedefendantsBibanjaweretobefound located,inthedisputedlandtheirclaim wouldfacechallenges onthebasisthattheyacquiredtheirinterestfromawrongparty. Theproperpartyistheadministratoroftheestatewhois clothedwiththeauthoritytodealwiththeestate.

CourtwitnessNo.2,PaulKatabaziBitarabehotoldcourtthathe wastherightadministratoroftheestateoftheirlatefather havingobtainedthelettersofadministrationintheyear2012. HedisputedthetransitionsmadebyChrispaBitarabehoher sister,asheneverauthorisedhertosellanypartoftheestate. Thisevidencewasnotcontestedincourtanditnegatively affectsthedefendantsclaim.

ItstritelawthatnopersonisauthorizedtodealwiththeEstate of the deceased except for someone with letters of Administration. Thegeneralpositionunderthelaw asper

## Section191ofSuccessionAct(supra)isthat;

"Exceptashereafterprovided,butsubjecttosection4ofthe AdministratorGeneral'sAct,norighttoanypartoftheproperty ofapersonwhohasdiedintestateshallbeestablishedinany courtofjustice,unlesslettersofadministrationhavefirstbeen grantedbyacourtofcompetentjurisdiction."

Clearly,thisprovisionwouldrenderanyactsofapersonor personsinrelationtotheestateofthedeceasedpersonillegal, nulland void ifthatperson has notobtained Letters of Administration. Thisisbecauseitisonlybythegrantthata personorpersonsareclothedwiththelegalauthoritytodeal withtheestateoranypartoftheestateofthedeceased.

InMakulaInternationalvs. HisEminenceCardinalNsubuga& Another[1989]HCB11;andNeptuneNoratanBhatiavs. Crane BankLtdCACA No.75of2006courtnotedthatoncean illegalityisbroughttotheattentionofthecourtitcannotbe ignored.

Itisthereforeclearthatevenifitweretobetruethatthe defendantsacquiredtheirbibanjainterestsinthesuitland,their purportedBibanjainterestscanonlybederivedfrom Chrisper Bitarabehowhodidnothaveauthoritytosell. Therefore,their claim asbibanjaholderscannotbesaidtobevalidinlawand cannotsucceed. Therightfulpersonwhohadauthoritytosell wastheadministrator,Mr. BitarabehoKatabaziPaulwhowas notevenknownbyalltheclaimants. Somewitnesseswho testifiedasDw6andDw10informedcourtthattheydidnot know whoPaulKatabaziBitarabeho(administrator)wasand thattheyhadneverseenhim.

Itisanestablishedprincipaloflawthatonceapartydoesnot knowhislandlorditisevidenceenoughtorelyontoqualify himasatrespasser.

Itisthiscourt'sfindingthatthe20th to147thdefendants trespassedontheplaintiff'slandcomprisedinKyadoblock206 plot671sincetheirpurportedbibanjainterestsarenotlocated inthesuitlandandsecondlytheyacquiredtheirinterestsfrom ChrisperBitarabehowhodidnothaveauthoritytosellland belongingtotheestateofPaulBitarabehobeforethesame wasdistributedtoherbytherecognisedadministrator.

However,the 7th,11th,14th and 19th defendants namely NanserekoMadinah,KanyikeFred,KilabilaJohn,andNanyanzi Scovialayinadifferentcategoryofdefendants. Evidenceon recordsupportsthepositionthattheyareamongtheoriginal 17occupantsonthesuitlandthathadbeensuedbythecourt witness2PaulKatabaziBitarabeho(administratoroftheestate ofthelatePaulBitarabeho)incivilsuitno625/2014(pexh3). ThesaidPaulBitarabehoandpw1confirmedtothiscourtthat theplaintiffwasawareoftheexistenceofthesepersonsonthe suitlandatthetimeofpurchase. Hecommencednegotiations with some of them so to compensate them. However according to PEX1-37(memorandums of understandings betweentheplaintiffandsomeofthedefendants)the7th,11th, 14thand19thdefendantswerenotcompensatedbytheplaintiff andyethecompensatedtheirco-defendantsintheoriginalsuit.

Theconductoftheplaintiffwhiledealing withthesefour defendants places them in the realm ofthe doctrines of legitimate expectation in public law and estopple. These doctrinesintendtogiverelieftopeoplewhentheyarenotable tojustifytheirclaimsbasedonthelaw aswasstatedin 1. P. Massey,Administrativelaw 8th Ed. Atpp344-345. The essenceisthatyoucannotrepresenttosomeonethattheyare entitledtosomethingandturnaroundtopenalisethem when theystandupto claim it. Intheinstantcase,itwasthe evidence ofPW1 Mr. Kiconco Medard thathe found 17 trespassersonthelandandwentintonegotiationswiththem, compesatedsomeofthem andothersfailedatnegotiation

levelwhentheyaskedformoremoneyandthenumbergrew beyondtheoriginal17. From thisevidenceitisclearthatthe plaintiffrepresentedtotheoriginal17personshefoundonland thatthey were entitled to compensation a reason they exercisedtheirpowersatnegotiations. Theplaintiffisestopped from denying thathe validated theiroccupancywhen he commencednegotiationsandcompensationprocesstothem. Heactuallysucceededincompensatingand/ordealwith13of them outofthe17originaloccupantsandwithdrew cases againstthemleaving4ofthemwhofailedatnegotiations.

Althoughthesefourdefendantswereoriginallytrespassers, theplaintiffelevatedthem toaspecialcategoryoftrespassers when he represented to them thattheywere entitled to compensation. Principles ofequity dictate that,the four defendantscannotberemovedfrom thelandwithoutalevelof compensationforthemisrepresentationbythepersonseeking toevictthem. Therefore,thiscourtdirectsthatbeforethe4 defendantsaboveleavetheland,theplaintiffcompensates eachoneofthem withanamountofmoneyequivalenttothe purchasepriceintheirrespectivepurchaseagreementswhich wereadmittedincourt.

Thisissuepartlysucceeds.

## ISSUE5

#### Whatremediesareavailabletotheparties?

# 1. Adeclarationthattheplaintiffistheownerofthelandin dispute.

Onthisprayertheplaintifftheplaintiffhasbeenfoundtohave purchased the land in dispute lawfully from the rightful administratorandgotregisteredinApril,2016. Themajorityof thedefendantshavingsoughttobetrespassersinthesuitland, heisthereforedeclaredalawfullyownerofthesuitland comprised in kyadondo block 206 plot 671 subject to compensation of only 4 defendants mentioned in the judgement.

### 2. GENERALDAMAGES.

The plaintiffsoughtforgeneraldamages amounting to 500,000,000=(fivehundredmillion)

Thelawconcerning generaldamagesfortrespasstolandis thatdamagesareintendedtocompensatetheclaimantfor beingkeptoutofhislandonwhateverbasistheyareassessed. Generaldamagesfortrespassinallitsformsisactionableper se,i.e.,thereisnoneedfortheplaintifftoprovethatheorshe hassustainedactualdamage. Thatnodamagemustbeshown beforeanactionwilllieisanimportanthallmarkoftrespassto landascontrastedwithothertorts. Butwithoutproofofactual loss ordamage,courts usually award nominaldamages. Damagesfortortsactionablepersearesaidtobe"atlarge", thatistosaytheCourt,takingalltherelevantcircumstances intoaccount,willreachanintuitiveassessmentoftheloss whichitconsiderstheplaintiffhassustained. Generaldamages thereforearediscretionaryinnature.

Inthiscaseasregardstothe7th11th,14thand19thdefendants. Thiscourthasalreadyfoundthattheplaintiffisestoppedfrom denyingthathevalidatedtheiroccupancywhenhecommenced negotiationsandcompensationprocesseswiththem. That beingthecase,thecircumstancesofthiscasedonotjustify theawardofdamagesagainstthem (7th,11th,14thand19th) defendants.

Asregardstheprayerfordamagesagainstthe127defendants thatmovedcourttobeaddedasjointdefendants,Iamequally constrained to makeordersofdamagesagainstthem for reasonsthattheywereconfusedagainsttheexactlocationof thesuitlandwhichwasnotevenknownbytheirLC1chairman whowitnessedthereagreements. Themajoritywhotestifiedin courtappeared to beilliterateand needed guidancefrom lawyersatthetimeofpurchase. Althoughignoranceisnota defencethetotalityofthecircumstancessurroundingthiscase asperevidenceonrecordbringoutageneralconfusionofthe demarcationofthesuitland. Theyhavealsopreviouslylost theirstructures,whichwereputdownasaresultoftheeviction order.

Itisthereforeintheinterestofjusticenottomakeanyorders todamagesthem.

## 3. Aprayerforvacantpossessionandpermanentinjunction.

An orderofpermanentinjunction is granted againstthe defendantswhohavebeenfoundtrespassersinthesuitland. Asregardsvacantpossession,theplaintiffhasalreadybeen declared <sup>a</sup> lawful owner of the suit land subject to compensationofthe4defendants. Heisthereforegranted vacantpossessionofthesuitlandwithinaperiodof1month afterfullcompensationofthe4defendantshereinnamed.

## 4. COSTS

## Theplaintiffsoughtforanorderofcosts

Indecidingthisissuethiscourtisguidedbytheprovisions section27(1)ofTheCivilProcedureActwhichconfersupona Judge,thediscretionandfullpowertodeterminebywhomand outofwhatpropertyandtowhatextentcostsincidenttoall suitsaretobepaid,andtogiveallnecessarydirectionsforthat purposes.

Despite this very wide discretion,as <sup>a</sup> generalrule the successfulpartyincontestedproceedingsisusuallyentitledto anawardofcosts. Itistheacceptedgeneralruleofourlawthat, intheabsenceofspecialcircumstancescostsfollowtheevent. (seeRitterv. Godfrey(1920)2KB47). However,thisrulewill yieldwhereconsiderationsoffairnessrequireit. Thecourtmay aswellexerciseitsdiscretioninawardingcostsasameansof enhancing properuse ofthe scarce and expensive court resource.

Inconsideringtheexerciseofitsdiscretionandwhetherto "otherwiseorder,"courtinthecaseofADRABOSTANELYVS MADIRAJIMMYHCCSNO.0024OF2013whilecitingthecase DevlinJAnglo-CyprianTradeAgenciesLtdv. PaphosWine IndustriesLtd,[1951]1AllER 873formulatedtherelevant principleasfollows:

Thegeneralpropositionforthatreasonisthattheunsuccessful

partyseekingtobeabsolvedofliabilitytopaythesuccessful party'scostsoftheproceedingsbearstheburdenofproving specialcircumstances

Thespecialcircumstancesenvisagedordinarilyinvolvesome sortofmisconducton the partofthe successfulparty. "Misconduct"inthiscontextmeansmisconductrelatingtothe litigation,orthecircumstancesleadinguptothelitigation. Such conductmayinclude;-asuitnotbroughtbonafides,butrather asavehicletoforceorcoercetheotherpartytobendtothe plaintiff'swill;wherethesuccessfulapplicanthadfailedon more issues than he had succeeded,thatmay make it reasonablethatheorshebearstheexpenseoflitigatingthat portion upon which he orshe has failed (see Forsterv. Farquhar(1893)1QB564)

Intheinstantcase,Ihavenotfoundanymisconductonthepart oftheplaintiffrelatingtothelitigation,howeverIhavenoted thatthatthe plaintifffiled this suitagainst5 different categoriesofpeopleandraised5issues. Thecasehasbeen dismissedonthefirst3issueswhichwouldideallymeanthat theplaintiffwouldhavebeenorderedtopaycoststothe parties againstwhom this case was dismissed. However, evidenceonrecordshowsthattheplaintiffhasbeendenied use of his land temporarily to enable conclusion of

investigation in the matter. It is therefore in the interest of justice not to make such orders against the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the majority (127) defendants were not sued by the plaintiff but applied to be joined as co-defendants on their own vide miscellaneous application no. 341 of 2019 and were added to the case. They defended the case and lost and as a rule, they must pay costs. Therefore, the 127 (from the $20<sup>th</sup>$ to the 147<sup>th</sup> defendants) who were added as co-defendants to the suit shall bear the costs of this suit.

In conclusion, therefore this suit partly succeeds with the following orders;

- 1. The plaintiff is declared the lawful owner of the suit land comprised in kyadondo block 206 plot 671 subject to compensation of only 4 defendants mentioned in the judgement. - 2. No order as to general and exemplary damages is granted. - 3. An order directing all persons named in the judgement as persons affected by the land boundaries of the suit land, to remove there structures with in a period of 30 days from the date of judgment failure of which execution to

issue.

- 4. Anorderforpermanentinjunctionandvacantpossession is granted against3rd to 147th defendantsubjectto compensation of Nansereko Mardina,Kanyike Fred, KirabiraJohnandNanyanziscovia. Vacantpossession shallonlybeeffectediftheDefendantswillnotvoluntarily leaveinaperiodofonemonth. - 5. The148th defendant(KCCA)isorderedto putproper demarcationsseparatingKampalafrom Wakisodistrictin theareaandputproperboundariesintheshortesttime possibletoavoidfutureconfusionsanddealwiththe illegalstructuresontheplaintiffsland. - 6. Costsawardedtotheplaintiffagainstthe20thtothe147th defendants.

DatedatKampalathis4thday,October,2019

………………………………………………………………………

TADEOASIIMWE

JUDGE