Luganda v Mbawadde and 3 Others (HCCS NO. 166 OF 2016) [2016] UGHCLD 282 (19 September 2016)

Full Case Text

#### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (LAND DIVISION)

## HCCS NO. 166 OF 2016

**YAFEESI LUGANDA :::::::::::::: PLAINTIFFS**

#### **VERSUS**

1. MBAWADDE JULIET

2. KABUNGA HERBERT

3. STANBIC BANK UGANDA LTD.

4. COMMISSIONER, LAND REGISTRATION: :DEFENDANTS

$15$

$25$

## BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE J. W. KWESIGA

#### **JUDGMENT:**

The Plaintiff sued the several defendants listed above claiming to be the registered proprietor of Kyadondo Block 196 Plot 178 Land at Komamboga and seeking several Declarations and Orders for protection of his proprietory rights and interests in the property.

The suitland is the plaintiff's family home and he was registered as the owner of the property on 21st October, 1965. In May/June 2008 he travelled to United Kingdom and left the first defendant in occupation of the suit property as a caretaker of the property. The first defendant fraudulently transferred the certificate of title into her names and subsequently into the second defendant's name who mortgaged the property to the 3rd defendant.

The 3rd defendant sought to fore close and sell the suitland. The plaintiff has at all materials time remained in possession and occupation of the suit land.

The plaintiff pleaded that the $1^{\ensuremath{\text{st}}}$ and the $2^{\ensuremath{\text{nd}}}$ defendants were fraudulently illegally registered on the title of the suitland without his consent/authority or knowledge as the proprietor and that the $3rd$ defendant's and mortgages were registered fraudulently and illegally. He listed several acts and particulars of fraud that he attributed to each of the defendants. The

$1$ |Page

acts of fraud shall be considered when examining the evidence as a whole and need not be reproduced at this stage.

The $3rd$ defendant's case as stated in the written statement of defence paragraph 4 stated:-

• By several facility letters Betty Nakawoya and the second defendant trading as M/s Kabunga Herbert Traders apply for and were granted term loans by the $3^{\ensuremath{\text{rd}}}$ defendant and security for the loan included Kyadondo Block 196, Plot 178 at Komambogo and legal mortgages were duly executed and registered on the suit property.

$\leq$

$\overline{0}$

$15$

$25$

$\mathscr{G}^{\circ}$

- Before granting the facilities the 3rd defendant carried out a search at Land's Registry and found that the land was registered in the name of the 2nd defendant. - That the 3rd defendant is a bonafide mortgagee for value without notice of any third party interest.

The second defendant's written statement of defence claim that he was an innocent purchaser for value without notice of knowledge of defence of title or alleged fraud on part of the 1st defendant, and that he as a lawful registered proprietor legally mortgaged the suit property to 3rd defendant. The $1$ st defendant did not file any written statement of defence.

On 16th June 2015 M/s Kiwanuka and Karugire Advocates for the plaintiff and Ms. Masembe, Makubuya, Adriko, Karugaba & Ssekatawa Advocates signed and filed a joint scheduling memorandum where the following were the agreed issues for determination.

- 1. Whether the suit property was lawfully and/or validly transferred from the plaintiff to the $1^{st}$ defendant? - 2. Whether the suit property was lawfully and or validly transferred from - the 1st defendant to the second defendant ? - 3. Whether or not the $3^{rd}$ defendant's mortgages are valid and enforceable? - 4. What remedies are available.

PW1, Yafesi Luganda (the plaintiff) aged 81 years told court that in 2008 he visited London and left Juliet Mbawadde, the first defendant to guard the

![](_page_1_Picture_13.jpeg)

suit house on Kyadondo, Block 196 Plot 178 at Komamboga. He became a registered proprietor of this property since 1965 and he has been in occupation of this property from 1965 to-date. He was away between 2nd May 2008 and 4th June 2008 and when he returned, his original certificate of title was missing from the house.

$\mathcal{L}$

$1\acute{5}$

$\infty$

$25$

He testified that he did not transfer his property to the $1^{\ensuremath{\text{st}}}$ defendant, he did not sell it to anybody else and he did not mortgage it to the 3rd defendant or anybody else.

He was surprised to receive a notice from the 3rd defendant, the Bank, dated 30th March 2012 and an advert to sell this property admitted as P.3.

He further testified that he subsequently saw documents of dealings in this land attributed to him which he was not party to, namely;

- $(a)$ A transfer form for the suit land purportedly signed by him on 12th May 2008 at Kampala when he was actually in London. He tendered a copy of his passport that shows he was in UK from $2nd$ May 2008 and returned on 4th June 2008 (See Exhibit P.2). - The application for consent to transfer is dated 6th May 2008 when $(b)$ he was away. - The consent to transfer declares the consideration for sale as Shs. $(c)$ 3,500,000/ $=$ on 29/5/2008 and states that Juliet Mbawadde was his daughter which is not true.

He told court that at no time did Stanbic official challenge his occupancy of the house or ask him the interest he had in the house.

Under Cross-Examination by Mr. James K. Bwogi, he clarified that he did not entrust Juliet Mbawadde with his certificate of title, he only left her to take care of his house while he was away. When he discovered his title missing he wrote to Land Registration Office and applied for injunction to protect his property.

On 17th February 2009 he was admitted in hospital. He was in hospital at Sir Albert Cook Hospital (Mengo) from February to May 2009. This is when the Bank took a photograph of the front of the suit house.

![](_page_2_Picture_11.jpeg)

3 | Page

PW2 - THOMAS OCAYA, an Advocate practicing with Kiwanuka and Karugire Advocates, testified that pursuant to the plaintiff's instruction, on 12th April 2012 he requested for and received from the registrar of Titles documents pertaining to the suit property which show that the property was transferred to Juliet Mbawadde ( $1^{st}$ defendant) after which a special Certificate of Title was issued before the property was transferred to Kabunga Herbart (2nd defendant) who later mortgaged the property to Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd, (3rd defendant). These documents were admitted together as P4. This closed the plaintiff's evidence.

$\mathcal{S}$

$\overline{0}$

$25$

$(30)$

The $1^{st}$ and $2^{nd}$ defendants were not available throughout the trial despite the fact that the $2^{nd}$ defendant filed a written statement of defence in person. The 2rd defendant called two witnesses to support it's case. DW1 - Hilda Kamugisha, a Legal Officer of Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd. She told court that she knows the second defendant as a bank customer who borrowed from the bank three times and the bank was trying to recover the money from him.

He borrowed Shs. $500,000,000/=$ and the suit property is one of the securities and the plaintiff contested the foreclosure process and challenged proprietorship of plot 178 Komamboga.

The valuation report by the Bank's Valuers stated "The property was *owner occupied'* and this was as at 13th February 2009. The occupant was Kabunga.

DW2 – Lucy Kabege testified that she made the Valuation Report dated $18th$ February 2009, and that the Valuation was done on 17th February 2009 but she does not recall anything about this property Plot 178 at Komamboga. This closed defence evidence.

# Issue No.1; Whether the suit property was lawfully and/or validly transferred from the plaintiff to the first defendant?

The plaintiff's evidence is that the first defendant fraudulently transferred the suit property into her names. That the instruments used to effect the transfer, namely the Transfer Form and Application for Consent to transfer were forged and allegedly signed by him during a period when he was out of

ワン

the country. I have examined the documental evidence below that do not favour the defence as a whole:-

$(i)$ The Transfer Form (PE4) from Yafesi Luganda to Mbawadde Juliet states to have been signed and witnessed on $12^{th}$ May 2008. Witnessed by Fred Semugenyi stated to be an Advocate. $\overline{\phantom{0}}$

$\mathcal{S}$

$\mathcal{O}$

$\pi$

$25$

- $(ii)$ The City Council and Uganda Revenue Authority Stamps indicate this form was presented for payment of the relevant taxes/dues on $8^{th}$ May 2008. This was before the purported date of execution of the Transfer Form. - $(iii)$ The Transfer Form does not state the consideration for the transfer. - $(iv)$ The application for consent to transfer the suit property is dated 6th May 2008. Long before the Transfer Form was signed. It declared this property to be **UNDEVELOPED** plot and transferred for a consideration of Shs. 7,000,000/=. The Government Valuer gave it a value of Shs. 7,000,000/ $=$ . It is interesting to note that the consent to transfer Valuing Officer was clearly Lucy Kabenge (DW2) for Chief Government Valuer. - $(v)$ The signature on the application for consent to transfer of $6^{th}$ May 2008 is signed by Lucy Kabenge as a government Valuer and she also signed the Valuation Report dated 18th February 2009, within a period of less than a year on behalf of the 3rd defendant and she stated in this Report "The rectangular plot is developed with a residential house with a servant's quarters at its *rear* ------ " Her report gives detailed development of the property which she valued at Shs. 270,000,000/= upon market value, and Shs. 190,000,000/ $=$ forced sale value. Signed by Lucy Kabenge on 18/2/2009.

These two valuation are so sharply different and it is difficult to tell whether the Valuer (DW2) is talking of the same property. In my view she did, while handling valuation for purposes of consent to transfer, act fraudulently by valuing the property as an undeveloped plot which it was not. The Government Valuer is supposed to value the property and give correct value is

property for purposes of payment of stamp duty that is an essential condition to transfer. This distortion was done in bad faith and amounted to a fraudulent valuation that is attributed to the first defendant who, among many other acts misrepresented the suit property Block 196 Plot 187 Komamboga as an undeveloped plot when in actual fact was development with the residential home since 1965.

$\overline{\mathcal{S}}$

$\cdot$ 10

$15$

$25$

- On 29th August 2008 about three months after Lucy Kabenge had $(vi)$ given the plot a value of Shs. 7,000,000/= for purposes of transfer into the name of Mbawadde Juliet, she gave the same plot a value of Shs. 5,000,000/ $=$ for purposes of transfer from MBAWADDE JULIET to KABUNGA HERBERT. - $(vii)$ This application for consent to transfer signed, both HERBERT **KABUNGA** $\quad\text{and}\quad$ JULIET MBAWADDE declared that the developments on this plot 178 Block 196 was NIL and that the consideration for this sale was Shs. $3,500,000/=$ . This has been considered together with attached Transfer Form which stated that the consideration was Shs. $28,000,000/=$ .

The plaintiff's evidence against the first defendant and the 2nd defendant stands unchallenged since both decided to exclude themselves from the proceedings. The plaintiff's evidence gives detailed account of his whereabouts at the time he is alleged to have executed the transfer instruments in favour of the $1^{\ensuremath{\text{st}}}$ defendant. He was in UK, and could not be present to sign in Kampala as depicted in the Transfer Forms.

I am satisfied that the plaintiff proved that he did not transfer the suit property to the first defendant. The transfer form is full of inconsistencies highlighted above which show deliberate falsehood which was intended to deceive for purposes of depriving the plaintiff of his property. This is fraudulent dealing in the suitland. See definition of fraud as settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Fredrick Zaabwe Versus Orient Bank Ltd. & Others - Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006.

Order 8 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules states "Every allegation of a fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the opposite party, shall be taken to be admitted, except against a person under disability; but the Court may in it's discretion require any facts so admitted to be proved otherwise than by that admission".

$\mathcal{S}$

$\overline{0}$

$15$

$AC$

## See Pro. Oloka Onyango & Others Versus Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2014).

A defendant who does not file a defence evaluates himself/herself from the proceedings of the court and cannot be heard unless he/she first successfully challenges the correctness of the exparte proceedings or judgment and have the same set aside. See Kateeba Versus Kanyehanye (1988-90) HCB 125: According to the plaintiff's evidence he has been in occupation of the suitland since 1965 to-date. He has been in continuous occupation and any diligent search would have disclosed that KABUNGA HERBERT has never occupied this property and was not in possession at the time he mortgaged the property. The third defendant (Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd.) had information in the spouse consent where Mrs. Kabunga state they were residing in a property comprised in FHR.452 Folio 8, Plot 17 Hobert Avenue. DW2, the Valuer told court that she never visit the property and so she could not tell whether it was the plaintiff or the $2^{nd}$ defendant in occupation.

In Nabanona Desiranta and Another Versus Kayiwa Joseph, HCCS No. .... Hon. Opio Aweri J. (as he then was) stated;- "In this case the 2nd defendant already bought the suit property which was in occupation of the plaintiffs. There was a therefore physical encumberance which he ought to have taken notice thereof. He was therefore, guilty of gross negligence or deliberately omitting to take or make proper inquiries about the status of the property. Therefore, his negligence was a particular of fraud on his part".

In his defence, the second defendant claimed to have been a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Unfortunately this defendant, apart from filing a written statement of defence did not participate in the trial. Pleadings alone cannot constitute a conclusive defence, it ought to be supported by evidence. The second defendant did not appear to challenge the plaintiff's evidence by cross-examination or adducing evidence of his own and therefore, this court is left to evaluate the plaintiff's evidence together with the third defendant's evidence. Any other circumstantial evidence that emerged in the trial. A bona fide purchaser according to Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition Page 127 is: "One who buys something for value without notice of another claim to the property and without actual or constructive notice of any defects in or informalities, claims or equities against the seller's title. One who has, in good faith paid valuable consideration for property without notice of prior adverse claim".

$\acute{5}$

$\mathcal{D}$

$15$

$\mathcal{D}$

$25$

$G0$

In Taylor Versus Stibbert (1803) 13 Aller 432 Lough borough Le held; If a vender is not in possession of the land he is selling, the purchaser must make inquiries of the person in possession or otherwise the property purchased will be subject to that person's rights.

A defendant who pleads to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice has a duty to prove the elements of this defence. The defence must be proved. The defendant assumes the burden of proof to prove;-

- That he paid valuable consideration. $(a)$ - That he had no notice of fraud of previous registered proprietor. $(b)$ - That in the purchase he acted in goodfaith. $(c)$ - That he carried out a diligent search and had no way of finding a $(d)$ defect in the previous owner's titles. This obligation on the purchase or mortgagee is well settled by L. Voumarg, QC in SALE OF LAND IN VICTORIA Second Edition Page 402 as follows;- "The duty of a purchaser or mortgagee to investigate the Title is not a duty owing to the holder or possible holder or a latent Title or security. It is a mere course which a man dealing bona fide in proper and usual manner for his own interest ought by himself or his Solicitor to follow that course the omission of it may be a thing requiring to be accounted for or explained. It may be evidence of a design $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$

state of Title ------- a purchaser who knows that the property purchased is in occupation of some other person than the vendor is affected with constructive notice of the right of the occupier but if he registers a conveyance without making further inquiries, he will lose the benefit of registration only if in the circumstances of the case the abstention from inquiry evidences a want of good faith".

Further reference has been made to David Sejjaka Versus Rebecca Musoke SCCA No. 12 of 1985 which settled that for a purchaser to be a bonafide purchaser must prove the following;-

$(1)$ Must have a valid Certificate of title from a person registered as a proprietor through fraud or otherwise.

$70$

$1\leq$

$25$

$20$

- $(2)$ Must have paid valuable consideration. - $(3)$ Must have acted in good faith without notice of fraud whether actual or implied.

The plaintiff's unchallenged evidence is that since 1965 up to date he has been in possession and occupation of the suit property.

The second defendant has never occupied the suit property. The circumstantial evidence derived from the spouse consent given by the second defendant's wife to the third defendant is that as of 29th May 2009 the Mortgagor resided in the property known as FHR 452 Folio 8 Plot 17 Hobert Avenue. This corroborates the plaintiff's evidence that he was at all material times in occupancy of the suit property and that thw 2nd defendant was never in occupation.

The third defendant's Agent and witness DW2 stated that she did not visit the home/property for purposes of valuation for mortgage purposes as required by the third defendant. Therefore, the third defendant did not satisfy itself that Kabunga, the Mortgagor was in occupation of the mortgaged property.

DW1 On the other hand, the third defendant's Legal Officer gave evidence $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ evidence for clarity:- "I have a copy of the report of Valuers. *The* property was owner occupied. The inspection was done on $13th$ December

![](0__page_8_Picture_9.jpeg)

9|Page

2009 at the time the property was owner occupied. registered on $17th$ February 2009, which was after the date of inspection. Kabunga was I can't tell whether the Bank made any other inspection to confirm that Kabunga was in possession of the property ------. I do not have a search report to show that the Bank came out with a search at Land Registry to confirm Kabunga's ownership. It ought to have been done, that is the bank practice".

$\epsilon$

$\mathcal{D}$

$\sqrt{5}$

$25$

I have considered the above evidence of DW1 with that of DW2. The Valuer who told court that she did not go to the property and she does not recall who visited the property on her behalf. She was not sure whether Kabunga was in occupation of the property. My evaluation of the above evidence together with that of the plaintiff leaves the plaintiff's evidence cogent on the fact that he was in occupation; the valuation report lacks integrity and so is the mortgage deed.

The 3rd defendant acted without a diligent inquiry into the interests of the occupant and in my view acted in bad faith and entered an invalid, illegal and irregular mortgage.

The duty of the Purchaser and Mortgagee to carry out due diligence was further settled by Vaughan Williams LJ. In Hunt Versus Luck (1902), ICH 428 at 433. That "----- if a Purchaser has notice that the Vendor is not in possession of the property he must make inquiries of the person in possession,------ and find from him what his rights are -----, if he does not choose to do that, then whatever title he acquires as a Purchaser will be subject to the title or right of the person in passion".

The 3rd defendant failed to carry out physical verification of who was in occupation of the suitland and if they had, it would have been established that it was the plaintiff who claims ownership of the suit property before hurriedly and recklessly proceeding to grant a lock on this questionable security.

This court has found the valuation report lacking in integrity and it is $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$

10|Page

prepared this report without visiting the property, stating that the borrower was in occupation whereas not.

This valuation report as discussed, when examined with the Transfer Form and Valuation in the application for consent to transfer all done by the same Valuer (DW2 manifestly showed acts done in perversion of the truth with intention to deprive the plaintiff of his property.

The conclusion, the $1^{st}$ , $2^{nd}$ and $3^{rd}$ defendants act illegally and fraudulently as above attributed to lack of them individually.

# What are the remedies available to the parties?

The Supreme Court in *Makula International Ltd. Versus Cardinal* Nsubuga & Another (1982) HCB settled that a Court of Law cannot sanction what is illegal. In an earlier case of *Lazarus Estate Ltd.* Versus Beansley (1956) QB, 702 at 712, Lord Denning stated:- "No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No Judgment of Court, Order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud un ravels everything ---. Once it is proved it violates Judgments, Contracts and all transactions whatsoever".

$15$

$2s'$

$(50)$

This court has a duty to protect the people's property against fraudulent deprivation in circumstances like those proved in the instant case. Based on this evidence and the Law examined hereinabove, it is hereby declared as follows;-

- 1. The Transfers and registration of Kyadondo Block 196 Plot 178 at Komamboga in the names of the first defendant and the second defendant were fraudulent and therefore, are hereby nullified. - 2. The Mortgaging of the suit land to the $3rd$ defendant by the $2nd$ defendant was fraudulent and therefore, is is hereby nullified. - 3. The Plaintiff is declared the Lawful registered proprietor of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 196 Plot 178 at Komamboga. - 4. The 4th Defendant is hereby ordered to restore the name of the plaintiff as the registered Proprietor and have the nullified mortgages removed

from the Certificate of Title of the suit property where it appears as an encumbrance.

- 5. A permanent injunction is granted to the plaintiff against all the efendants or their Agents who are prohibited from selling, evicting, transferring or in any other way dealing with the suit land and not to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and occupation. - 6. I have considered the inconvenience and stress that the plaintiff, a man of advanced age of 81 years has been subjected to by the 3rd defendant's threat to evict and sell the plaintiff's property. If the 3rd defendant had been more deligent than it was, the plaintiff would not have suffered these mischief. I have considered the trouble has gone through for this long period and he is entitled to general damages. I do hereby award the plaintiff general damages against the three defendants in the sum of Shs. 300,000,000/= (Three Hundred Million Shillings Only). And each of them; 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants shall pay to the plaintiff Shs. 100,000,000/= as general damages.

**/>**

JAS'

**...**

- 7. The general damages shall attract interest at 20% per annum from the date of this judgment until payment in full. - 8. The defendants shall pay the plaintiff's costs of this suit in equal proportions.

**/** *Signed: ^^KwesiglF5* "Judge Dated this 4th day^T/May 2016.

4th *May 2016.*

## *In the presence of;-*

- > *Mr. Peter Kawuma for* the plaintiff - > Mr. *David Mukiibi holding brief for Mr. Bwogi for 3rd defendant* - *> The Plaintiff is present* - *&gt; Ms Miria Nalwede - Court Cler'*

![](0__page_11_Picture_12.jpeg)

**12|P a g e**

?■> **I**

**1**

**I**

### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA LAND DIVISION CIVIL SUIT NO. 166 OF 2012

# YAFESI LUGANDA

$\mathbf{I}^{\prime}$

#### }::::::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFF **VERSUS**

- 1. MBAWADDE JULIET - 2. KABUNGA HERBERT

3. STANBIC BANK UGANDA LIMITED

4. THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REGISTRATION}::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

### DECREE

THE SUIT coming up for final disposal this 4th day of May 2016, before His Lordship the Hon. Mr. Justice Wilson Kwesiga in the presence of Peter Kauma counsel for the Plaintiff and Mr. David Mukiibi holding brief for Mr. Bwogi Kalibala Counsel for the 3rd Defendant;

### IT is HEREBY ORDERED and DECREED that:

- 1. The transfers and registration of Kyadondo Block 196 Plot 178 at Komamboga in the names of the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant were fraudulent and therefore, are hereby nullified. - 2. The mortgaging of the suit land to the 3rd Defendant by the 2nd Defendant was fraudulent and therefore, is hereby nullified. - 3. The Plaintiff is declared the lawful registered proprietor of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 196 Plot 178 at Komamboga. - 4. The 4th Defendant is hereby ordered to restore the name of the Plaintiff as the registered proprietor and have the nullified mortgages removed from the Certificate of Title of the suit property where it appears as an encumbrance. - 5. A permanent injunction is granted to the Plaintiff against all the Defendants or their Agents who are prohibited from selling, evicting, transferring or in any other way dealing with the suit land and not to interfere with the Plaintiff's possession and occupation. - 6. The Plaintiff is awarded general damages against the three Defendants in - the sum of Shs. 300,000,000/= (Three hundred Million shillings only) and

![](0__page_12_Picture_17.jpeg)

each of them; 1st 2nd h d

100,000,000/=(Onp ki 3rd Defendants sha|l pay to the Plaintiff Shs. /• The general damage h ^'^°n s^'^n9s only) as general damages.

- ofthis judgment7nt' pXVinM ' 2°% Per fr°m - **8.** 6 S enda"tS Sha" *™* Pontiffs costs of this suit in equal portions.

We prove:

**!**

**I**

MTvIAKS ADVOCATES Counsel for the 3rd Defendant

my hand and seal of this Court this day of GIVEN under ..... &TSy.2O16

![](0__page_13_Picture_9.jpeg)

+256-414-345054 +256-414-255278 Email: advocates@kandlc£M Website: [www.kan](http://www.kan)dlccojtg DRAWN AND FILED BY:- KIWANUKA & KARUGIRE ADVOCATES, PLOT 5A2 ACACIA AVENUE, KOLOLO, P. O. BOX 6061, KAMPALA. Tel: