Kiyaga v Hoima District Land Board and Another (Civil Suit No. 26 of 2023) [2023] UGHCLD 112 (2 March 2023)

# **THE RUPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT HOIMA CIVIL SUIT NO.26 OF 2023**

FORMERLY MASINDI CIVIL SUIT NO. 47 OF 2021

**KIYAGA EDWARD ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFF**

### **VERSUS**

### **1. HOIMA DISTRICT LAND BOARD**

### **2. CHRISTY MARY NAMAKULA KAPERE :::::::::::::::::::::::: DEFENDANTS**

### **JUDGMENT**

#### *Before: Hon. Justice Byaruhanga Jesse Rugyema*

- [1] The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is for cancellation of the land title comprised in **FRV MAS 54 Folio 23, Plot 5 Kamurasi Road-Hoima Municipality** for fraud, a declaration that the actions and decisions of the 1st defendant re-allocating or offering the suit property to the 2nd defendant against a sitting tenant and before expiration of a subsisting lease was unlawful and illegal, permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents, servants, departments, authorities and officials from evicting the plaintiff or dealing and interfering with the plaintiff's property in any way, an order directing the 1st defendant and Registrar of titles Masindi Zonal land to cancel and rectify the entry in the land registry of the suit property into the plaintiff's name, an order for general damages, costs of the suit and any other just relief. - [2] It is the plaintiff's case that in 1967, a lease of 2 years was granted to an Indian **T/a Kassam Mohamed & Sons Ltd** in respect of the suit land, whose lease expired in 1969 but was further extended for one more year ending on 30/9/1970. - [3] On 29/7/1972, two years after the expiration of the lease, **Kassam Mohamed & Sons Ltd** sold the suit property to the 2nd defendant and in 1973, the 2nd defendant secured a 49 lease offer and a land title respectively. However, in **June 1978,** the 2nd defendant's lease was

cancelled for fraudulent acquisition and the suit property was allocated to the plaintiff in **August 1978** by way of a lease from Ministry of Lands and Hoima Town Council (Urban-Authority) respectively.

- [4] That since 1980, the plaintiff has been in physical possession of the suit land to date without any interference whatsoever and his 49 lease period is still subsisting. - [5] That in 2019, the 2nd defendant fraudulently applied to the 1st defendant for conversion of the suit property lease into Freehold tenure without disclosing that it had been cancelled whereby on 31/10/2019, the 1st defendant unlawfully and without the plaintiff's knowledge and consent, re-allocated the suit property for a Freehold tenure to the 2nd defendant, and on 20/4/2021, the 2nd defendant secured a Freehold land title thereon hence this suit. - [6] In its defence, the 1st defendant denied the plaintiff's allegations but contended that it has never interfered with the plaintiff's occupation and use and that it was misled by the 2nd defendant to approve an application for conversion of lease hold to freehold of the suit land as the registered proprietor under **Hoima District Land Board Minute HDLB 07/2019 (5) (B) (2) (a) of 31/10/2019.** That the 1st defendant had no knowledge that the lease offer and leasehold title granted to **M/s Kassam Mohamed & Sons Ltd** dated 16/3/1067 and sold to the 2nd defendant had expired and accordingly cancelled. - [7] The **2 nd defendant** on her part denied the plaintiff's allegations and contended that the said former owner and herself lawfully acquired the suit property and fully complied with the terms of the lease including putting up a structure and obtained an occupation permit dated 18/5/1970. That she purchased the suit property from **Kassam Mohamed & Sons Ltd** on **29/7/1972** and on the **25/11/1977,** she applied for a lease offer which was offered to her on **10/4/1978.** That otherwise, by 5/6/1978 when the letter for cancellation of the certificate of title in the names of **Kassam Mohamed & Sons Ltd** was forwarded, the 2nd defendant had already been legally offered the same land. That on the 22/7/1978, the Chief Registrar of titles was instructed to prepare her lease certificate of title of the suit property. - [8] It is in the premises, the contention of the 2nd defendant, that she lawfully and without misrepresentation applied for conversion of lease

hold interest of the suit land to freehold, that she lawfully presented her documents and the 1st defendant lawfully and properly granted her freehold tenure and therefore, she lawfully procured registration without any form of misrepresentation.

- [9] The 2nd defendant filed a counter claim against the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant for inter alia, trespass to land, general damages, fraud, permanent injunction, mesne profits, vacant possession, eviction order and a declaration that the suit land is property of the 2nd defendant/counter claimant. - [10] It is the 2nd defendant/counter claimant's case in the counter claim that she purchased the suit land from **Kassam Mohamed & Sons Ltd** in 1972 upon which he took possession thereby renting the same to **Grindleys Bank (U) Ltd, Uganda Commercial Bank** and then, a one **Kobusinge Faridah Grace.** - [11] That later, the counter claimant obtained and acquired a lease offer of the said land from 1973 for 49 years until when she applied for and was granted conversion of the **leasehold** interest to **freehold** in 2019 now comprised in **FRV MAS 54, Folio 23 Bugahya 15/Kamurasi Road, Plot 5 land at Hoima.** - [12] During scheduling, the following issues were formulated for the determination of this suit: - 1) Who is the rightful owner of the suit land as between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant/counter claimant. - 2) Whether the 2 nd defendant obtained her Freehold certificate of title fraudulently. - 3) Whether the plaintiff is a trespasser on the suit land. - 4) What remedies are available to the parties.

# **Counsel Legal representation**

[13] **Mr. Kasaija Raymond** and **Allan Alekaho** appeared for the plaintiff while **Mr. Mugisha Ronald** appeared for the 1st defendant and **Mr. Willy Lubega** appeared for the 2nd defendant. All the counsel filed their respective written submissions for their respective clients as permitted by court.

## **Preliminary point law**

## **Whether the plaintiff's suit is time barred.**

- [14] Counsel for the 2nd defendant submitted that under **S.5 of the Limitation Act,** *"No action shall be brought by the person to recover any land after the expiration of 12 years from the date on which the right of action accrued to him or her, if it first accrued to some person through whom he or she claims to that person."* He relied on the authorities of **F. A Miramago Vs A. G (1979) HCB 24** where it was held that the period of limitation begins to run as against a plaintiff from the time the cause of action accrued until when the suit is actually filed. - [15] Counsel submitted that in the instant case, the plaintiff's suit is for recovery of land but that the plaintiff brought this suit disguised as trespass to circumvent the strict law in the Limitation Act. That even if the suit land was ever offered to the plaintiff as he claims, there is no evidence that he has ever taken the 2nd defendant to court over ownership of the said land from **1972** when the 2nd defendant purchased this land **(D. Exh.3**) until when this case was filed. That it is after a period of 43 years that the plaintiff brings this suit against the 2 nd defendant for cancellation of her title alleging that it was acquired fraudulently whereas not. - [16] 2ndly, that there is uncontroverted evidence that the 2nd defendant was in possession through **Grindleys Bank** and **Uganda Commercial Bank** as her tenants in the 1970s and 1980s **(D. Exh.13, D. Exh. 7 & 8**) and the plaintiff never took up any action against the defendant. - [17] However, according to the plaintiff's pleadings, whereas it is true as per the memorandum of sale **(D. Exh.3),** the 2nd defendant purchased the suit property on 20/7/1972 from **Kassam Mohamed & Sons Ltd**, it is the plaintiff's contention that by then, **Kassam Mohamed & Sons Ltd** suit land lease had long expired and therefore, he had no interest to sell to the 2nd defendant. 2ndly, that by June 1978, owing to the expiration of the lease owned by **Kassam Mohamed & Son Ltd,** it had been cancelled **(P. Exh.14).** - [18] The 2nd defendant however in her evidence, deny that the suit property comprised in **LRV 668 Folio 18 Plot No.5 Kamurasi Road** was ever cancelled. That **P. Exh.14** relied upon by the plaintiff was a mere letter

to cancel redundant/stale and expired lease certificates of title but not her lawfully acquired interest in the suit land.

[19] Indeed, I find that a perusal of **P. Exh.14** is to the effect that the above suit property was among the expired lease hold titles that were forwarded to the Chief Registrar of titles for cancellation. There is however no report on record and in the pleadings from the Chief Registrar of titles regarding his action as regards the leasehold titles that were forwarded to him for cancellation. The court record however has a consent judgment of the plaintiff and Hoima District Land Board (1st defendant), the controlling authority entered in this suit whose terms under **paragraph (a)** is as follows;

*"The 1st defendant hereby concedes that the 2nd defendant's lease offer to wit LWB/3320 and lease hold title were cancelled on 5 th June 1978 since she illegally purchased the suit property in 1972 from a lessee whose lease had already expired on 30th day of September 1970 and the suit land reverted to Hoima Town Council."*

**"Hoima File No. LWB 3320"** refers to **LRV 668, Folio 19, Plot 5 Kamurasi Road,** the suit land (See both **P. Exh.14** and **D. Exh.16**)

[20] It is on the basis of the fact that the 2nd defendant's lease offer and lease hold title were cancelled that the plaintiff in 1978 applied and was allocated the suit land by Hoima Town Council (Urban-Authority) which was the controlling Authority of all urban land by then under statutory leases (P. Exh.1, 2 & 3). **P. Exh.1** dated 22/8/1978 addressed to the plaintiff is thus:

### *"RE: Offer of plot 5, Kamurasi Road-Hoima*

*Reference is made to my later LWB/ 3320 regarding the cancellation of some leasehold titles. The lands offices, having cancelled lease offer LWB/3320 in favour of Christy Mary Semakula Kapere due to some irregularities in acquiring her lease, I wish to confirm to you that your pending application has been considered and plot 5 at Kamurasi Road has duly been offered and allocated to you for a period of 49 years since you are already in physical possession of the property. Please contact the town clerk, Hoima for further action. Yours faithfully,"*

*Sign*

- [21] It is the plaintiff's case that it was until around 2018 when the 2nd defendant fronted a one **Grace Faridah Kobusinge,** the plaintiff's former care taker, upon forgeries and misrepresentations, that they purported to sell the suit land to a one **Martin John Owor.** The 2nd defendant in 2019 fraudulently applied under false declaration and misrepresentation to the 1st defendant for conversion of her cancelled lease into freehold tenure and that on **20/4/2021**, the 2nd defendant fraudulently secured a Freehold land title of the suit property under the recommendation of the 1st defendant hence this suit. - [22] The plaintiff filed this suit on 20/5/2021. It is my view that the plaintiff's cause of action accrued on **20/4/2021** when the 2nd defendant as alleged by the plaintiff, fraudulently secured a free hold land title over the suit land that had been offered to him and later being available on approval by Hoima District Land Board **(P. Exhs. 4,5,6,7 & 8),** thus depriving him of his interest. He could not sue before he is deprived of his interest. I in the premises find that the plaintiff's action is not time barred. The preliminary point of law of limitation by counsel for the 2nd defendant is in the premises accordingly overruled and rejected.

### **Issue No.1: Who is the rightful owner of the suit land as between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant/counter claimant.**

**2: Whether the 2nd defendant obtained her Freehold certificate Of title fraudulently.**

**3: Whether the plaintiff is a trespasser on the suit land.**

- [23] Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the suit land comprised on **Plot5, at Kamurasi Road in Hoima City, Hoima District,** having acquired the same in 1978 by way of allocation/lease for 49 years to him by Hoima Town Council (Urban authority) by then upon cancellation of the 2nd defendant's lease title. - [24] In 2019, the plaintiff applied for a free hold land title in respect of the suit land, the Area Land Committee inspected the land and confirmed in their report that he is in physical possession and recommended that the same be allocated to him under free hold tenure as he was a sitting tenant. He was further approved by Hoima District Land Board and Hoima District physical planning committee respectively.

- [25] The plaintiff testified that initially, in 1967, Hoima Town Council had given a lease to an Indian **T/a Kassam Mohamed & Sons Ltd** in respect to the suit land whose lease expired on 30/9/1970 and that the property therefore reverted to the landlord (Hoima Town Council). That however, on 29/7/1972, two years after the expiration of the lease, before **Kassam Mohamed & Sons** left the country, illegally sold the suit property to the 2nd defendant. - [26] It is the contention of counsel that **Kassam Mohamed & Sons** had no capacity to sell the suit property to the 2nd defendant and that the lease having expired, the purported sale of the suit land by **Kassam Mohamed & Sons,** no title/interest passed to the 2nd defendant. - [27] Counsel submitted further that notwithstanding all the irregularities and illegalities in the 2nd defendant's acquisition of the suit land, in 1973, she manipulated and unlawfully influenced some officers in the lands office to grant her a lease which lease hold title was later revoked/cancelled by the Ministry of Lands and Urban Development **(P. Exhs. 14 & 14**). That upon the cancellation of the 2nd defendant's lease, the suit property was allocated to the plaintiff in 1978, by Hoima Town Council (urban authority) and since then, he has been in physical possession of the suit land to date. - [28] The 2nd defendant's counsel on the other hand submitted that the 2nd defendant is the rightful owner of the suit land having acquired the same by way of purchase from **Kassam Mohamed & Sons Ltd** as per the sale Agreement dated 29/7/1972 **(D. Exh.3).** That at the time of purchase, **Kassam Mohamed & Sons Ltd** had been issued with occupational permit by Hoima Town Council **(D. Exh.4)** whereupon the vendor had constructed a structure on the land. - [29] Counsel submitted further that the urban authority of Hoima Town Council and Lands Office were notified of the change in ownership **(D. Exhs. 5, 9 & 10)** and through a letter dated 19/10/1987, the 2nd defendant was advised to lodge an application for that very plot as seen in **D. Exh.14** and the same was done. The 2nd defendant was granted the lease offer upon having complied with all the terms of the lease and since then, she has been the one in possession and occupation of the said land. [30] Further that after complying with the terms of the lease, the 2nd defendant was issued with a certificate of title **(D. Exh.1)** for the said land described as **LRV 1151 Folio 7, Plot 5 Kamurasi Road** and the said certificate of title has never been cancelled for irregularities as alleged by the plaintiff.

## **Effect of the sale of the suit land by Kassam Mohamed & Sons Ltd to the 2nd Defendant.**

- [31] It is not in dispute that the 2nd defendant on the 29/7/1972 purchased the suit property from a one **Kassam Mohamed & Sons Ltd** as per the memorandum of sale executed **(D. Exh.3**). It is also not in dispute that at the time of purchase of the property by the 2nd defendant, the vendor's lease of the property had expired. It is trite that when a lease expires, the land automatically reverts to the lessor; **Dr. Adeodaiota Kekitiinwa & 3 Ors Vs Edward Maudo Wokida, CA CA No.3 /2007 [1999] KALR.** It follows therefore that upon the expiry of **Kassam Mohamed & Sons Ltd's** lease, the suit land reverted to Hoima Town Council the urban controlling authority. - [32] It is however evident and not in dispute that the former lessee of the suit property, **Kassam Mohamed & Sons Ltd,** the vendor, had developments on the suit lease land to wit; a house and had been issued an occupation permit by Hoima Town Council **(D. Exh.5,14 & 4).** It is also evident and not in dispute that when the 2nd defendant purchased the suit property, Hoima Town Council, the controlling authority was notified of the change in ownership and the urban authority went ahead and recognized the 2nd defendant as the defacto owner of the suit property **(D. Exhs.9, 10 & 11).** This again is confirmed by the urban authority's failure to issue any notice of re-entry on the suit property after the expiry of the lease. - [33] In my view, it is my finding that at the time **Kassam Mohamed & Sons Ltd** sold the suit property to the 2nd defendant, the vendor was a tenant at sufferance because the lease of the suit property had long expired; **Remon Vs City of London Real Property Co. Ltd [1921]1 KB 58**, implying that occupancy could be terminated by the urban controlling authority as the Landlord, at will. However, as I have already observed, the urban authority neither re-entered nor issued a notice of re-entry to the lessee but instead recognized the 2nd defendant who purchased the

demised property as the new owner. In particular, there is **D. Exh.9,** a letter from the Town Clerk dated 7/6/1977 addressed to the District surveyor which is to this effect:

#### *"House on plot No.5 Kamurasi Road*

*This is to confirm that the building on the above plot belongs to Miss Christine Kapere legally…"*

> See also letter dated 30/10/76 from the Town Clerk **(D. Exh.18)** and letter dated 19/10/77 from the District Surveyor to the Town Clerk **(D. Exh.14).**

- [34] The total implication of the above is that by the purchase of the suit property by the 2nd defendant from the vendor, **Kassam Mohamed & Sons Ltd**, the 2nd defendant acquired an equitable interest in the suit land. This equitable interest was recognized by the urban authority. The 2nd defendant also understood and appreciated that since the lease had expired and her predecessor was a tenant at sufferance, she was no better. As a result, being a sitting tenant by virtue of her acquisition of the equitable interest in the suit property, she on 25/11/1987 filed an application and was granted the lease offer of the suit property by the 1 st defendant **(D. Exhs.15,16,17 & 20)**. Consequently, the 2nd defendant acquired a lease hold title for the suit land **(D. Exh.2).** - [35] In conclusion, I find that the sale between **Kassam Mohamed & Sons Ltd** and the 2nd defendant was neither unlawful nor irregular as it was not in any breach of any statute or regulation. Though the vendor's lease had expired, since the urban authority as the Landlord had neither re-entered nor issued a notice of re-entry, he could sell his residential equitable interest which the 2nd defendant accordingly acquired upon purchase.

# **Alleged cancellation of the 2nd defendant's leasehold title.**

[36] It is the plaintiff's case that the 2nd defendant's leasehold title was cancelled by virtue of **P. Exh.14** which listed **LRV 668 Folio 19 (expired) for Plot 5 Kamurasi Road, Hoima file No. LWD/3320** as one of the leasehold titles forwarded to the Chief Registrar of Titles for cancellation. It should however be noted that by 5th/6/1978 when **P. Exh.14** was generated, the 2nd defendant had not acquired any leasehold title worth referring to as having "expired" and therefore due

for cancellation. The 2nd defendant's leasehold certificate of title was issued on 4/12/1981 **(P. Exh.2)**

- [37] From the foregoing, it is clear to me as rightly submitted by counsel for the 2nd defendant, it is not correct that the 2nd defendant's leasehold title was cancelled. It is probable that **P. Exh.14** was referring to **Kassam Mohamed & Sons Ltd** title and its cancellation would not in any case bar the 2nd defendant to apply for the same suit land since it would in the circumstances be available for leasing. - [38] In conclusion, I find that the plaintiff has adduced no evidence and therefore has failed to prove that the 2nd defendant's leasehold certificate of title was cancelled and therefore, that the basis of her application for conversion of the lease to freehold title was not on a cancelled title **(P. Exh.15).**

## **Alleged plaintiff's interest in the suit property**

- [39] The plaintiff's contention is that the purported sale of the suit land by **Kassam Mohamed & Sons Ltd** and the 2nd defendant passed no title/interest to her. As already found, by virtue of the said sale transaction, the 2 nd defendant acquired an equitable interest in the suit land. There was therefore no irregularity or illegality in the 2nd defendant's acquisition of the suit land. - [40] The 2nd contention is that in **June 1978**, the 2nd defendant's leasehold title for **Plot 5 Kamurasi Road** was among the cancelled leases as a result of the fraudulent acquisition. However, as found by this court, by **June 1978**, the 2nd defendant had not acquired any leasehold title (See **D. Exh.2-**Defendant's leasehold title was issued on **4/12/1981**). - [41] Lastly, that upon cancellation of the 2nd defendant's lease offer, the suit property was allocated to the plaintiff by way of a lease from the Ministry of Lands and Hoima Town- Council (urban authority) respectively as per **P. Exhs.1,2,& 3.** Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the conversion of the 2nd defendant's cancelled lease into freehold was to defeat the interests of the plaintiff who had lived on the suit land since 1987.

[42] It is apparent on record that apart from mere communications from the land officer **(P. Exhs.1,2&3)** to the effect that the plaintiff's lease application was approved, there is no evidence of a "lease offer" or later on a "lease hold title" of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. Such communications never constituted a lease offer. Indeed, this is confirmed by the plaintiff's own application in 2019 for conversion of the suit land from **customary** tenure to **freehold** tenure **(P. Exh.4).** This application is confirmation that the plaintiff had never been offered any lease thus, his application for conversion from customary tenure and not leasehold. As regards the plaintiff's tenure on the suit land, there is however, also no evidence that he ever occupied or used the suit land under customary tenure. It is my view that until registration of the lease from the controlling authority/land lord, the plaintiff would have no interest to claim. In this case, the plaintiff offered nothing as a form of evidence to support his claim that he had any interest in the suit land.

# **Alleged possession of the suit property**

- [43] It is the plaintiff's case that he has been in physical possession of the suit property since 1980. However, a part from the mere communication from the District Surveyor dated **22/8/1978** which was to the effect that the plaintiff was in physical possession of the suit property **(P. Exh.1),** the plaintiff has not adduced any evidence to support this claim. This is so in the circumstances that the author of **P. Exh.1** did not appear in court to substantiate his assertion of possession in view of the overwhelming evidence on record to the contrary. - [44] The plaintiff conceded during cross examination that both **Grindleys Bank** and **Uganda Commercial Bank** were once housed on the suit land. The 2nd defendant led evidence to the effect that these banks were her tenants **(D. Exhs.7,8,13,18,19,26** and **27**). **D. Exh.7** is a Rent receipt from **UCB** dated 30th/01/1989 in favour of the 2nd defendant which evidence is supported and corroborated by letters from the urban authority officials **(D. Exhs.9 & 14)** regarding the 2nd defendant's ownership of the house on the suit land. The foregoing is sufficient evidence that the 2nd defendant has been in possession by the time she applied for conversion of the leasehold to freehold. The plaintiff's claim of possession is accordingly rejected for it is not supported by any evidence.

- [45] In conclusion, I find that there is no evidence that the plaintiff was ever granted any lease as he claims for **P. Exh.3** he relies on does not constitute a leasehold title and therefore, his plea of a legitimate expectation does not arise, 2ndly, the plea cannot apply to prejudice or defeat the 2nd defendant's legitimate interest on the suit land as the registered proprietor (under **S.59 of the RTA)** whose title is indefeasible save for fraud. - [46] The plaintiff claim fraud on the part of the defendants. Fraud has been defined to include dishonest dealing in land or sharp practice intended to deprive a person of an interest in land, including an unregistered interest; See **Kampala Bottlers Ltd Vs Damanico Ltd, SCCA No.22 of 1992, Ssejjaka Nalima Vs Rebecca Musoke, SCCA No.2/1985** and **Katarikawe Vs Katwiremu [1977] HCB 187.** - [47] In the instant case, no evidence has been led by the plaintiff to prove any of his allegations of fraud to wit, the 2nd defendant procuring registration of the suit property under misrepresentation, that the plaintiff was a sitting tenant and or collusion of the 1st and 2nd defendant to defeat the plaintiff's interest. - [48] As a result, of the foregoing, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd issues are found in favour of the 2nd defendant, that is, the 2nd defendant is found as the rightful owner of the suit land, she lawfully obtained the freehold certificate of title of the land and therefore any attempts or actions to secure possession of the suit property without her consent and authority would amount to trespass. The plaintiff's assumption of possession in 2019 when the controversial **Kobusinge** who is claimed by both parties as their respective caretaker (of the suit land) vacated amount to trespass since it was without the consent of the owner, the 2nd defendant.

#### **Issue No.4: What remedies are available to the parties**

- [49] The 1st, 2nd and 3rd issues having been found in favour of the 2nd Defendant/Counter claimant, judgment is therefore given in favour of the Defendants/Counter claimants with the following orders; - 1. **A Declaration** that 2nd defendant/counter claimant is the rightful owner of the suit land comprised in **Plot 5 Vol. MAS 54, Folio 23, Kamurasi Road, Hoima City, Hoima District**.

- 2. **The Plaintiff's claims of physical possession and assumption of possession of the suit land upon vacation by Kobusinge amount to trespass** and an order of vacant possession issues accordingly. - 3. **A Permanent Injunction** restraining the plaintiff, his servants or agents from trespassing on the suit land issues accordingly. - 4. **The Consent judgment** dated 15/February/2022 entered in this suit between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant is accordingly set aside. - 5. **General damages;** These are such as the law will presume to be the direct natural or probable consequence of the act complained of; **Stroms Vs Hutchinson (1905) AC 515.** They should be compensatory in nature in that they should restore some satisfaction, as far as money can do it, to the injured party; **Takiya Kashwahiri & Anor Vs Kajungu, CACA No.85/2011.** In the instant case, the defendant/counter claimant adduced evidence as regards how the plaintiff unlawfully assumed possession of the suit land since 2019 and therefore denied her a chance to rent it out. She has been definitely inconvenienced and subjected to psychological torture and mental anguish due to the 1st defendant's illegal actions. As a result, I consider and award her **Ugx 20,000,000/= as general damages** and **Ugx 30,000,000/= as mesne profits** as she has been denied of the use of the land and the property thereon since 2019. - 6. **Costs;** The 2nd defendant/counter claimant is the successful litigant and as such under **S.27 CPA,** she is entitled to costs. - 7. **Interest;** The awards of general damages and mesne profits shall carry an interest rate of **25%** per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.

Signed and Dated this **2 nd day of March, 2023.**

> **………………………………………… Byaruhanga Jesse Rugyema JUDGE.**