Maria Nakimera Nassanga v Teddy Nakawessa & 3 oers (Civil Suit No.61 Of 2002 & No.295 Of 2002) (Civil Suit No.61 of 2002 & No.295 of 2002) [2003] UGHC 85 (6 January 2003)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang2057\deflangfe2057{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f36\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f37\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f39\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f40\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f41\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f42\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f43\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f44\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{ \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa100\sbauto1\saauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid10967747 Normal (Web);}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid16017878 footer;}{\*\cs17 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid16017878 page number;}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\pgptbl {\pgp\ipgp0\itap0\li0\ri0\sb0\sa0}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1974642\rsid4013526\rsid5047544\rsid6432198\rsid10967747\rsid14510610\rsid14830933\rsid14943212\rsid15139292\rsid16017878\rsid16525304} {\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA }{\author jchemeri}{\operator jchemeri}{\creatim\yr2001\mo1\dy15\hr4\min23}{\revtim\yr2001\mo1\dy19\hr7\min34}{\version3}{\edmins41}{\nofpages10}{\nofwords3012}{\nofchars17171} {\*\company JSI}{\nofcharsws20143}{\vern24689}}\paperw11906\paperh16838 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1 \dgvshow1\jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot10967747\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid16017878 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid16017878 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid16017878 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid16017878 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \linex0\headery708\footery708\colsx708\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid15139292\sftnbj {\footer \pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\pvpara\phmrg\posxr\posy0\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4013526 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs17\insrsid16017878 PAGE }}{\fldrslt { \cs17\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid14510610 1}}}{\cs17\insrsid16017878 \par }\pard \s16\ql \li0\ri360\widctlpar\tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin360\lin0\itap0\pararsid16017878 {\insrsid16017878 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1 \widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid6432198 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6432198\charrsid14510610 T}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 HE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6432198\charrsid14510610 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6432198\charrsid14510610 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA, AT KAMPALA}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6432198\charrsid14510610 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6432198\charrsid14510610 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 CIVIL SUITS NO 61 OF 2002 AND NO. 295 OF 2002.}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6432198\charrsid14510610 \par MARIA NAKIMERA NASSANGA\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85PLANTIFF}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6432198\charrsid14510610 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6432198\charrsid14510610 VS\line }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6432198\charrsid14510610 1.}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 TEDDY NAKAWESA] \line 2. HARRIET NAGUJJA] \line 3. H. KAKEMBO] \line 4. MRS. KIBALIZI:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::DEFENDANTS }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6432198\charrsid14510610 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 BEFORE: V. F. MUSOKE-KIBUUKA (JUDGE}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 ) }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6432198\charrsid14510610 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 JUDGMENT }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6432198\charrsid14510610 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 Introduction}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 . }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6432198\charrsid14510610 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 The plaintiff, Maria Nakimera, is an elderly lady. She testified that she was 80 years old. She filed two suits in this honourable court. They are civil suit No 61 of 2002 and civil suit No. 295 of 2002. In civil suit No.61 of 2002, the plaintiff sued the two first defendants jointly. The last two defendants were also sued jointly in civil suit No.295 of 2002. By order made by this court on I 3 June, 2002, the two suits were consolidated since they related to the same subject matter and arose out of the same transaction. \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 Plaintiff\rquote s case.}{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 In brief, the plaintiff\rquote s case is that she claims to be the owner of a kibanja at Busega, Kibumbiro zone A, within the city of Kampala. She claims to have held the kibanja for well over 50 years having obtained it from her father, the late Tanansi Balizak iwa. She alleges that the four defendants trespassed upon her kibanja on 20th December, 2001 and demolished her three houses which were on her kibanja. The plaintiff also alleges that in the process of demolishing the three houses, the defendants also des troyed her household properties.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6432198 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 The plaintiff seeks an order declaring her rightful owner of a kibanja on the suit property. She seeks an order awarding her general damages for trespass against the first and second defendants. She also seeks an order agai nst all the four defendants for compensation for the three houses and household properties alleged to have been destroyed by them. Finally, the plaintiff seeks an order award}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6432198 ing her the costs of this suit.

\par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6432198\charrsid14510610 Defendants\rquote }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 case.}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6432198\charrsid14510610 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 The first and second defendant s filed a joint defence. The two claim that they are the administrators of the estate of their father, the late Leo Kigozi Ssemwanga. They claimed that the suit property was registered in their}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6432198 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 names as administrators of the estate of their father. Leo Ssem wanga Kigozi inherited the land from his father, the late Tanansi Balizakiwa who was also the father of the plaintiff. They denied that the plaintiff, who is their paternal aunt, had any kibanja or any other interest in the suit property. According to bot h defendants, the plaintiff was allowed to stay upon the suit property merely as a caretaker owing to the fact that the beneficiaries of the suit property were still young. The two defendants denied that there was any destruction of property belonging to t he plaintiff. In the alternative, the two first defendants averred that if any destruction of property ever took place, then it was in execution of an eviction order issued by the LCI court of Kibumbiro zone A, Busega village. \line Lastly, the first and second defendants contended that the plaintiff\rquote s case against them was barred by the doctrine of }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6432198 res J}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 udicata. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 They pray that the plaint be rejected or struck off the register.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6432198 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 In their defence the third and fourth defendants denied all the allegations made aga inst them. They both specifically denied that they carried out any demolition of any houses and that they destroyed any household properties, belonging to the plaintiff, as was alleged in the plaint. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6432198

\par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 Issues.}{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 The issues for determination as agreed upon by the parties are: \line a) Whether the suit against the first and second defendants is }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 res iudicata }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 \line b) Whether the plaintiff has any kibanja (customary tenancy) interest in the suit property or whether she is a mere caretaker; \line C).. Whether any of the defendants trespassed upon the plaintiffs kibanja;-. \line d) Whether the plaintiff suffered any loss or damage. \line e) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies she seeks.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6432198 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 Evidential Analysis.}{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 I will relate and analyse the evidence in respect of each issue individually. \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 Res judicata.}{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 Learned counsel Mr. Urban Tibamanya had sought to raise this issue as a preliminary objection. The court urged him to flame it as one of the issues owing to the fact that its disposition would itself call for evidence. The questio n is whether the case is, in relation to the first and the second defendants, barred b}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14943212 y the doctrine of res judicata. \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 The law governing the application of the doctrine of }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 res iudicata }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 is found in section seven of the }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 65. }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 The provision reads: \line \'937. }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 No court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a court c ompetent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard finally and decided by such court.\'94 }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14943212 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 The argument raised, by Mr. Tibamanya, on behalf of the first and second defendant is that the LCI co urt of Kibumbiro zone A, Busega village, did determine the issues of ownership of the suit property as well as the issue of trespass. A certified copy of the judgment of that court was annexed to the defence of the first and second defendants and it was a dmitted into evidence as exhibit 03. The case in the LCI court of Busega was designated as Civil Su}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14943212 it No. 013 of 2000, decided on }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 24.12.2000. The case was heard and determined }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 ex-parte }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 because the court noted that when summons were served upon the plaintiff, she rejected them and did not appear before the court on the hearing date. \par The plaintiff, in her testimony in court denied that civil suit 013}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14943212 of 2000 was ever before the LC1}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 court of Kibumbiro zone. She denied that she had ever been summoned to appear before the LCI court.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14943212 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 Mr. Bagandawa, learned counsel for the plaintiff, argued that the issues between plaintiff and the first and second defendants have never been heard and determined by the LCI court of Kibumbiro zone. He argued that if this court fou nd that the case was ever before the LCI court of Kibumbiro zone, then it should find that the present case was not barred by the doctrine of }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14943212 res j}{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 udicata }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 on account of the fact that the former case was not heard and determined on its merits because the ca se was heard ex-parte.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14943212 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 I heard the evidence of the plaintiff herself on this matter. I also heard and I have examined the evidence of DW3 and DW4. That is the General Secretary and the Chairperson, LCI, of Kibumbiro zone. I do not believe the evidence of the plaintiff that she was never summoned to the LCI court in relation to the case that was fi}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14943212 led against her by defendants No}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 s.1 and 2. The plaintiff lied to this court when she testified that there was never such a case before that court. On the other ha}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14943212 nd, \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 DW3 and DW4 appeared to me to be truthful witnesses. I also believe that exhibit D3 is a genuine judgment of the LCI court and that it was not concocted for the purposes of this trial as learned counsel Mr}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14943212 . Badagawa stated from the bar. \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 \line Indeed, the issues of trespass and conversion were adjudicated upon fully by the court. It clearly appears to me that the authority in }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 Nakiredde Vs Hotel International }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 (1987) }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 HCB, 85, } {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 which learned Counsel, Mr. Badagawa has cited to support the argument that the mer its of the case were never heard and determined has no relevance to the instant case. I do not think that the holding would apply where a defendant refuses to answer summon to file a defence and the court proceeds exparte. For explanation No.4 to the prov isions of section 7 of the }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 Civil Procedure Act }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 clearly state that any defence that would have been raised, if a defence had been filed, is presumed to have been in issue. In the instant case, the plaintiff\rquote s claim of being a kibanja owner and, therefore, no t a trespasser would be deemed to have been in issue and fully determined by the LCI court if that court was a court of competent jurisdiction to try and determine the case in question. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14943212 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 By raising the issue of trespass to her kibanja which kibanja the LCI court found, in Civil Suit No.013 of 2000, that the plaintiff never held, }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 the plaintiff would be attempting to bring before this court in another way in the form of a new cause of action a transaction which had already been presented before a court of com petent jurisdiction in earlier proceedings and dul}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14943212 y adjudicated upon. Ssemakula vs. Susan Magala a}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 nd 2 Others (1979) HCB 90. }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 In that case, the case against both defendants would be barred by }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 res judicata. }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14943212 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 Be that as it may, it appears to me that the more important aspect of this analysis is to answer the question whether the LCI court of Kibumbiro zone was a court of competent jurisdiction in the former suit.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14943212 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 Mr. Tibamanya, learned counsel for the defendants, has argued that since the case in the LCI court was based upon claims of trespass and conversion it, therefore, fell under the jurisdiction of the LC courts provided under part 2 of the }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 First Schedule }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 to the }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 Resistance Committees (Judicial Powers) Statue 1988.}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5047544 \par }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 I find considerable difficulties to agree with that argument raised by learned counsel. As this court held in }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 Maria Kevina Ssentamu Vs. Kikondo Kyaterekera Growers Cooperative society HCCS NO. 67 of 1995, (reported in (1996) I KALR 160), }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 the term \lquote trespass\rquote as contained in part 2 of the }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 First Schedule }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 to the }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 Resistance Committees }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 (Judicial }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 Powers) Statute 1988, }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 does not include trespass to land because the kind of land disputes that an LCI court may entertain are specified under the }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 Second Schedule }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 to the same Statute. In }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5047544\charrsid16017878 other wards}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 , an LCI court can only competently try disputes relating to land held under customary tenure. That included disputes involving trespass to such land. The trespass contemplated under part 2 of the }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 First Schedule }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 to the statute involves other forms of trespass other than to land. \line Similarly, the term conversion in part 2 of the }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 First Schedule }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 does not apply to land. That term as it appears in part 2 of the }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 First Schedule }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 to the (Statute) does only relate to conversion of property other than land. The only disp ute involving conversion of land that an LCI court may competently entertain is one involving conversion of land held under customary law as provided for under Second S}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5047544 chedule 2 to the same statute. \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 For those reasons, therefore, it appears to me that th e LCI court of Kilumbiro zone had no competent jurisdiction to entertain a dispute involving trespass to and conversion of land not held under customary law but registered under the }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 Registration of Titles Act. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 The entire trial appears to me to have been a nullity on account of lack of competent jurisdiction. An order made by a court without competent jurisdiction is a nullity. }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 Mubiru And Others Vs. Kayiwa (1979) HCB 212. }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5047544 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 It, accordingly, follows that the plaintiff\rquote s case against the first and the second defendant is not barred by the doctrine of }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 res judicata. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 I will proceed to analyse the evidence in relation to the rest of the issues in the ca}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5047544 se against all four defendants. \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 Kibanja interest}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 \line The second issue is whether the plaintiff has any kibanja interest on the suit property.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5047544 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 The relevant evidence on the plaintiffs side is that of herself as PWI, that of PW4, Elizabeth Nassozi, a sister to the plaintiff, and PW6, Blandina Nakawesa, another sister to the plaintiff I have examined the entire evidence of the three plaintiff \rquote s witnesses. I found nothing establishing the kibanja interest claim which is contained in the plaintiff}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5047544 \rquote }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 s pleadings. In fact PW4 and PW6 testified in total departure from the plaintiff\rquote s pleadings. Their testimony and that of the plain tiff, in cross-examination, was to the effect that after the death of their father, Tanansi Balizzakiwa, in 1927, the clan leaders gave the land at Busega to all the 6 daughters of Balizzakiwa. In other wards the witnesses were saying that all the 6 daugh ters of Tananzi Balizzakiwa had milo tenure interest in the suit property. That included the plaintiff as well who, in her pleadings had set out a kibanja interest claim in the same land.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 It is a well established rule of procedure that a party cannot be allowed by a court to depart from his or her case as set out in the pleadings and adduce evidence to \par established a different case which is inconsistent with his or her pleadings. A party to a case is bound by his or her pleadings. }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 Interf}{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 reight Forwarders Uganda Ltd Vs. East African development Bank, SCCA No 13 of 1993.}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 All in all, the plaintiff has not, on the balance of probabilities, proved her claim of owning a kibanja interest in the suit property. On the other hand the first and second defendants have produced exhibit D2, the Succession Register in respect of the estate of Leo Kigozi. They have also produced exhibit P6, the certificate of title in respect of the suit property. Both prove that the two have beneficial and proprietary interests in the sui t property. They have produced DW7, }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 Jane Namusoke, }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 who appeared to me to be a most impressive witness. She was the wife of the late Leo Kigozi. She was present when Leo Kigozi assigned the caretaker role of his house at Busega to the plaintiff who, in 1956, had left marriage and was residing with Leo Kigozi at Kalambi in present day Mpigi District. I am satisfied that DW7\rquote s }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610\charrsid16017878 testimony}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 is very credible evidence. Although the first and second defendants are daughters of Leo Kigozi who was husband to DW7, the w itness is not the biological mother to any of the defendants. She had no motive for desiring protect their interests as against those of the plaintiff who is also her sister in law. I am, therefore, satisfied that the plaintiffs stay upon the suit propert y was not one of a kibanja owner but one of a mere caretaker, first for her brother Leo Kigozi and later for the beneficiaries who were the daughters of Leo Kigozi. Her desire to give the land to her own children and grand children has no basis whatever.} {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 Trespas}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610\charrsid14510610 s}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 . }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610\charrsid14510610 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 As to whether any of the defendants trespassed upon the plaintiff\rquote s kibanja, in }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 Sheik Muhammed Lubowa Vs. Kitara Enterprises ltd. (1992) KLR 127, }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 trespass was defined as \'93entry }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 to land without the consent of the owner\'94 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 it follows, therefore, that since the plaintiff has failed to establish that she owns any kibanja interest or any other interest, upon the suit property the question whether any of the defendants trespassed upon her kibanja must be answered in the negative. And it is.}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 Loss or Damage}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 \line The next issue is whether the plaintiff suffered any loss or damage.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 \line The plaintiff\rquote s case was that he owned three houses which were destroyed by the defendants. She also alleged that the third and fourth defendants destroyed her household properties. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 I will start with the three houses allegedly destroyed. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 From the evidence of the plaintiff, and that of PW2, Eva Nakakembo and PW5 Kayiwa David, as well as that of the second defendant, DW1, DW3 lsmael Kayondo, the LCI chairperson and DW8 Kakembo Herbert, I remain with no doubt that some structures were destroyed during the eviction of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had ignored the Administrator General\rquote s advice to vacate the suit property from as far back as 1994. The plaintiff\rquote s presence on the land was ill egal just in the same way as her eviction was since the order for her eviction was issued by a court lacking competent jurisdiction. But even equity cannot come to her aid since she cannot benefit from her own illegal act of trespass. \par In order for the pla intiff to establish that she suffered any loss or damage necessitating compensatory relief from this court, the plaintiff had to prove that her presence on the land was not illegal (did not amount to trespass), and that she actually owned the demolished s tructures. She also had to establish the respective monetary values of the houses and properties constituting the claim. The plaint}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 iff has done none of the three. \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 In her pleadings, the plaintiff claimed that three houses belonging to her were destroyed. In her testimony, however, she testified that she had constructed only two houses at Busega. She could not recall when she did so. She could not present anything to indicate}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 the value of those structures.

\par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 I found tremendous difficulties in believing the evi dence of both PW2 Eva Nakakembo as well as PW5, Kayiwa David. Their respective testimonies were exaggerated. None of them appeared to me to deserve safe credibility. According to each of them the destruction of the structures happened on two separate days .}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 That is on 20}{\lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid14510610\charrsid14510610 th}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 and 21}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid14510610\charrsid14510610 st}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 , December, 2001. From their evidence one forms the impression that there were many structures that were destroyed yet only three small structures appear to have been removed. The work involved could be accomplished efficiently wit hin a matter of less than one hour since the witnesses say several men took part in the demolition.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 On the other hand, there is the evidence of DW8, Herbert Kakembo, who appeared to me to be a }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 more credible witness than both }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 PW2 and PW5 as well as the plaintiff herself. His evidence was that the plaintiff did not own any structure of her own on the suit property. The three structures that were destroyed were the butchery built in mud and wattle by the late Leo Kigozi, a kitchen structure built by the gran d children of the plaintiff and a two roomed block structure built by a daughter of the plaintiff for her own use. The plaintiff was residing in the main house, built by the late Atanansi Balizzakiwa, which was never demolished. I believe the evidence of that witness.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 Lastly, what the plaintiff seeks against the first and second defendant in terms of compensation is, in effect, special damages. As a rule, special damages must strictly be pleaded and proved. In both respects, that rule has not been complied with. The plaintiffs claim thus appears to me to be bad in law. }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 Ssali Vs. Bwesigye }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 \line (1978) }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 HCB 188. }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 The Plaintiffs case against the third and fourth defendant must equally fail. The claim against them was that they destroyed household properties of the p laintiff which lay outside the demolished structures. The evidence against the two was basically from PW2 Eva Nabokembo and PW5, Kayiwa David. I have already given reasons why I consider the evidence of those two witnesses to be the kind of evidence that could not be safely acted upon. It does not appear to me to be believable that those two witnesses and other relatives of the plaintiff could have left any valuable property of the plaintiff outside the destroyed or half from the }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610\charrsid14510610 20}{\lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid14510610\charrsid14510610 th}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610\charrsid14510610 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 to the evening of}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610\charrsid14510610 21}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid14510610\charrsid14510610 st}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 December 2001 unattended to or placed in safe custody. Indeed, it is equally unbelievable that Mrs. Kibalizi could, for no explained reason, have gone out of her way to g}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 o and purchase paraffin in a jerr}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 ycan, bring it to a compound where a lot of people ha d gathered and, in broad day light, set fire to some old woman\rquote s \par property left lying about in the compound after her house had been demolished. That evidence was clearly the product of the mental creation of, most probably, PW2.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 I accept Mrs. Kibalizi\rquote s e xplanation to the effect that she could have annoyed the plaintiff and her witnesses, who are her grandchildren, because she had earlier introduced a prospective purchaser of the suit property to the first defendant. The plaintiff and her witnesses got to know about that fact.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 Quite like the case of the demolished structures, the properties claimed to have been destroyed and their respective values have equally not been proved. Even in the pleadings, the claim was merely too generally pleaded.}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610\charrsid14510610 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 Reliefs}{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 \line Th e last issue is whether the plaintiff deserves the remedies she sought in the plaint. Since all her claims have failed, it is inevitable that she cannot secure any of the remedies which she sought in the plaints. The case is, accordingly, dismissed agains t all the four defendant with costs. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 V. F. MUSOKE-KIBUUKA}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610\charrsid14510610 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 (JUDGE) \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 06/01/2003 \par Court: Order}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610\charrsid14510610 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 This judgment may be delivered by the Deputy Registrar in charge of Civil matters on a day and time fixed by her.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid16017878 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 V. F. MUSOKE-KIBUUKA }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14510610\charrsid14510610 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 (JUDGE) \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10967747\charrsid14510610 06/01/2003. \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6432198 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14830933\charrsid16017878 \par }}