Mukiibi and Another v Najjuma and 6 Others (CIVIL SUIT NO. 1005 OF 1999) [2000] UGHC 56 (31 October 2000)

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

## CIVIL SUIT NO. 1005 OF 1999

1. GEOFREY MUKIIBI 2. MARGARET NABAKOOZA KYANSIMPT // Lucus. PLAINTIFFS $\overline{\text{vs}}$

- VERONICA NAJJUMA - 2. DARIA - 3. NIGHT KATWE - 4. DOLOTIYA NAKAYIZA - 5. SEMAKULA - 6. MEKETE HENRY - 7. KIRYOKYA DEFENDANTS

## THE HONOURABLE LADY JUSTICE C. A. OKELLO

## **JUDGMENT**

The plaintiffs, who are a son and his mother, filed this suit against the defendants jointly and severally for a declaration that the defendants are trespassers on part of a kibanja formerly plot 43 Musajjalumbwa Road Mengo but now known by Kampala City Council as Block 12 Plot 611 Musajjalumbwa Road Mengo in Kampala. The plaintiffs further pray for orders for general damages for crespass an order for the eviction of the defendants from the said property, demolition of the illegal structures on the are negaty, mashe surfile and posts of the news

None of the defendants filed a defence in the suit. Consequently an interlocutory judgment was entered against them severally and jointly under order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules on the $19/11/1999$ . The suit was set down before me for assessment of

$\sim$

$\vec{v}$

$\mathbf{1}$

damages, the hearing commenced on the 6th J-5ne 2000.

competence of the suit and •••the' plaintiff's locus standi'therein. <sup>I</sup> raised this issue when the matter was first called for hearing Counsel was asked whether the suit was competent in view of the facts that its subject-matter was the estate of in the suit had obtained letters of administration to the estate. The estate, not administered and has not been distributed. to dispose off preliminary matters which cropped up in the course on the 24th February 2000. a deceased person and none or the two plaintiffs Before I refer to the evidence adduced in the case, I would like of the proceedings. One of the preliminary matters was the

/

/*f* <sup>r</sup>

tor the plaintiffs. At the conclusion of his arguments <sup>I</sup> decided that standi the suit subject-matter. The ruling was on ... he authority of the Appeal No. the respondent in that appea^.. [who had no letters of suit in the lower .-. Mattei of his' deceased father]*,* son of his late father. The locus standi of the plaintiffs in the current frh'icii was the estate the suit is competent and the plaintiffs therein, being a son and i *t-* ' the widow of the deceased proprietor of the suit land, have locus administration when he filed and prosecuted a case of Israel Kabwa v Martin Banoba Musiga [Supreme Court Civil suit is equally based on their respective beneficial interests was founded on the respondent's beneficial interest to his late father's estate as the customary heir and a 52 of 1995], which decided <sup>J</sup>that the locus standi of was briefly argued by the learned counsel to file the suit to protect their beneficial interest in This issue

**I**

to the deceased's estate. They are thus entitled to prosecute this suit in order to protect their beneficial interest in the suit subject matter.

The other preliminary matter is the interlocutory judgment which was entered for the plaintiffs against che defendants when the defendants failed to file their defences in the suit. . The interlocutory judgment was entered under order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules which provides that:

"Where the plaint is drawn with a claim for pecuniary damages only or for detention of goods with or without a claim for pecuniary damages, and the defendant fails or all the defendants, if more than one fail to file a defence on<br>or before the day fixed in the summons, the plaintiff may, subject to the provisions of rule 3 of this order, enter interlocutory judgment against the defendant or defendants and set down the suit for assessment by the court of the value of the goods and damages or damages only ----."

I have perused the plaint in the suit and in particular, the prayers contained therein. I find that the prayers are not restricted to orders for reliefs by way of pecuniary damages only, or for detention of goods. Paragraph 8 of the plaint which contains the reliefs the plaintiffs are seeking from this court, shows that among the reliefs sought are:

$\star$ .

- A declaration that the defendants are trespassers on part $\mathbf{1}$ of the kibanja. - Eviction of the defendants from the said land. $2)$ - Demolition of the illegal structures. 3)

All these reliefs revolve around the suit-subject-matter which is a kibanja, situate Block 12 Plot 611 Musajjalumbwa Road Mengo. The suit subject matter is not goods as I understand the word. The word goods is a word used to denote movable property or something which is capable of being removed from the soil.

The word 'goods' is not defined in the Civil Procedure Act but the Sale of Goods Act defines it in section 2 as follows:

"Goods includes all chattels personal other than things in action and money, and all emblements, industrial growing crops, and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale."

The reliefs listed supra are not claims for pecuniary damages perse, nor are they claims for detention : f goods within the meaning of order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The claims are for immovable property.

My view is that the matter should have proceeded under order $9$ rule 8 which provides that:

"In all suits not by the rules of this Order otherwise<br>specifically provided for, in case the party does not file a defence on or before the day fixed therein and upon a co pliance with the provisions of mule 3 of this order, the sual may proceed as it such a party has filed a defence."

Interlocutory judgment was entered wrongly. The suit should have been set down for hearing under the provisions of order 9 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules (Supra). In exercise of the

inherent power conferred on the court by section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act, I hereby quash and set aside that judgment. It is no longer of any consequence in the proceedings. I believe that the exercise of the inherent powers has not prejudiced any of the parties to the suit. I shall now return to the merits of the suit. $\bullet$

Three issues were framed at the commencement of hearing of the suit. These were:

- $\mathbf{1}$ Whether the suit kibanja belongs to the estate of Godfrey Kiwanuka Kyansimbi. - $2\mathbf{1}$ Whether or not the defendants are trespassers on the said kibanja. - $3]$ Remedies available to the parties.

The plaintiffs called two witnesses the first of whom was the first plaintiff Mr. Geofrey Mukiibi. His testimony was that the second plaintiff Margaret Nabakooza Kyansimbi, is his mother and is the widow of the late Godfrey Kyansimbi who died on the 9/7/1998. That the late Kyansimbi owned a kibanja located at plot 611 Mwanga II Road. The area of the $\frac{1}{12}$ banja is one acre. He testified that the deceased had constructed two big houses on ... .................................. persons have illegally constructed mud and wattle houses on parts of the kibanja. The persons are the seven defendants. That it was the first defendant Veronica who put up a house on the kibanja first, the other defendants' constructions followed suit.

$\cdot\,$

$\mathsf{S}$

PW1 testified that it was the first defendant who sold parts of the kibanja to the other six defendants. $PW_{\div}$ continued that the kibanja once belonged to an old lady called Abisagi Batesanaliwo. This old lady was the first plaintiff's grandmother and mother of Godfrey Kiwanuka Kyansimbi. When the old lady died in 1982, she devised the land to the Tate Kiwanuka in a will [exh P3]. Kiwanuka proved the will in court and he was issued probate of the same in 1996 in the High Court at Kampala Probate and Administration Cause No. 326 of 1996 [exh P3]. Before her death, Abisagi Batesanaliwo and later Godfrey Kiwanuka Kyansimbi used to pay Busulu then later ground rent to $\mathtt{Kam}_{\mathrm{lc}}$ ala City Council as shown by demand notes and receipts issued by Kampala City Council [exh P4 and exh P5]. PW1 testified that his late father after succeeding to the kibanja, sold some pieces to two persons. One of the persons was a Senegalese by the name of Gokau who signed a sale agreement with the late Kiwanuka Kyansimbi [exh P2]. The second buyer was a business concern called Institute of Accounting and Business Profession [exh P7].

$S4$

PWI's further evidence was that when the first defendant sold land to the other five defendants, his late father who was still alive complained but the first defendant who has been an LC official in the village where the suit property is located ...................................... late father, he too warned the defendants about their illegal stay on the kibanja but to no avail.

It was the first plaintiff's evidence that the 7th defendant did

$\epsilon$

not himself build on the suit property but that together with the first defendant, the 7th defendant sold a portion of the propertyto the third defendant, who has since buying the property, constructed houses thereon from which she derives rental income at shs. 200,000 per month. PW1 testified that there are five other houses shs. 50.000 per month. He further said that but for the defendant's illegal structures, he would have utilised the suit kibanja for constructing houses on it and thus benefiting there from. Explaining the arrival of the first defendant on the suit kibanja, PW1 testified that she first came to the name of Peter who used to stay in the home of Abisagi. Peter was not related to Abisagi but he used to live in- a small house that Abisagi built. When Peter died, the first defendant which was later demolished, another house replaced the demolished one. on the kibanja' which arevlet 'out at a rental "sum of nurse a person by remained and continued residing in the house

The first plaintiff's prayers were that:

**<sup>1</sup>** a? Court should declare that the defendants are trespassers on the suit property.

*j*

- b] property. Court should order the defendants to pay him compensation for the five years they have illegally been on the. suit - the suit property. on •on or tne uefendant'<sup>s</sup> nouses - d) The defendants should pay costs to the plaintiffs.

second witness was Mrs Margaret Kyansimbi Kiwanuka who is the The second plaintiff in the suit. Her testimony was very similar to that of PW1. She confirmed that she is the widow of the late Kiwanuka Kyansimbi who died on the 9th July 1998; She further confirmed that the suit kibanj a once belonged to Abisagi first, buried on the suit kibanja before she was taken..to her final-" resting place' after' the " Luwero Triangle war ended. made a will [exh P3] in which she devised the suit kibanja to Kiwanuka Kyansimbi. She further testified that she knows all the defendants and that all the defendants are staying on the suit kibanj a having trespassed and built houses thereon. She testified that when the defendants commenced construction on the suit kibanj a*,* still alive and But the defendants took no heed of him. Finally, PW2 testified that the first defendant is the chairperson LC1 of the \_rea ibn which the kibanja is located. PW2 .testified tl-at the late Abisagi Batesanaliwo who died in 1982 and was protested at the actions of the defendants. the late Kiwanuka Kyansimbi was

The plaintiff's evidence closed with the testimony of the second witness.

j

The for the plaintiffs addressed the— issues In his address on the first tne Godfrey Kiwanuka JKyansimbi*,* - the learned Mr. Charles Mbogo ■reviewed the testimony of the two witnesses for the plaintiffs. In the course of his review, counsel traced the root of the title the suit land commencing with ownership of the property by to learned counsel framed in his written submissions. estate or tssue namely wnetnei uie. suit kibanja oexongs to

Abisagi Batesanaliwo, who devised the same to the late Kiwanuka Kyansimbi by her will dated 12.12.1980. The learned counsel made Kiwanuka Kyansimbi in High Court Administration Cause No. 326/96 [exh P3] *.* Counsel submitted that during his ownership of the suit kibanja, Kyansimbi in exercise' of- the :right of ownership sold parts of the suit property to concern [exh P7] . The learned counsel referred to the Kampala City Council rate demand notes 1972,1973, 1974 , 1977, 1978 , 1981 and 1988 as well as receipts for payment of some of these demand notes; all of which the bundle marked exh PS. Reference was also made to receipts for Busulu exh P5 and exh P4. The learned counsel then concluded that the suit kibanja belonged to the late Kiwanuka Kyansimbi . reference to probate of this will which was granted to the late payments oi are in one Gakou and a business for the years 1971, 1975, 1976,

have examined the evidence adduced and considered the submissions made m connection with the first issue. <sup>1</sup> am satisfied that the suit kibanja was once owned by the late Abisagi Batesanaliwo who paid Busulu [exh P4] and later Kampala I am also satisfied in suit kibanja belongs to the estate of the late Godfrey K. Kyansimbi. City Council rates [exh P5] for the kibanja. that the late Abisagi devised the kibanja to the late Kiwanuka F.i v. anuk a d <sup>1</sup> o\*d; apparent<sup>1</sup> Kyansimbi by a will probate of which was granted to Kiwanuka in Since •crSte.teJ^the

That brings me to the second issue which is: whether or not the

J

defendants are trespassers on the said kibanja. Mr. Mbogo in his submissions referred to the evidence adduced especially the testimony of PW1 that six of the defendants $(1 - 6)$ have built houses on the suit kibanja, further that the late Kyansimbi protested against the construction by letters written to the defendants by his lawyers. The learned Mr. Mbogo also made reference to PWI's evidence that when he protested to the defendants about their illegal stay on the suit property, they told him that he had no power over the kibanja since the person with authority [the late Kyansimbi] had died. Reference was also to PW2's evidence about the presence of all the defendants on the suit property. Mr. Mbogo argued that trespass is committed when one goes on the land of another without the invitation of any sort and whose presence is either unknown to the proprietor or if known is practically objected to. He referred to case of Addie vs Dumbreck [1929] AC 358. Counsel argued that trespass is also committed when a person with authority given to him by law to enter upon the land of another for a particular purpose, subsequently abuses such authority by doing that which he is not authorised to do. Thus, an entry that was lawful at the begining becomes trespass abinitio when the authority to enter is abused. It was argued that trespass to land is an interference with possession of the land by anybody against the person in possession of the land or entitled to possession of the land. The learned Mr. Mbogo argued that the evidence before the court shows that the first defendant's entry on the suit kibanja was initially lawful, she had permission to enter and stay therein for a particular purpose, namely nursing her sick father called

$S8$

Peter. But that the first defendant continued staying on the property after the owner had asked her to leave, she also sold parts of the kibanja to the rest of the defendants without the authority of the owner. It was argued that the action of remaining on the property against the will of the owner, as well as act of selling portions thereof to the other defendants, were both acts of trespass. In as far as the second to 7th defendants are concerned, the learned Mr. Mbogo argued that they are equally trespassers because they entered the suit libanja and remained there despite protest from the late Kyansimbi and later PW1. The 7th defendant was also said to have committed trespass because he helped the first defendant to sell part of the suit kibanja to the 3rd defendant. The learned Mr. Mbogo referred to the cases of Visram and Karsan vs Bhatt [1965] EA 798; Sheik Lubowa v Kitaka Enterprises the citation of which was given as (1987) C. A. 42 (unreported); Mulindwa vs AG [1985] HCB38, and Nakabira and 2 others vs Masaka District Growers Cooperative Union, the citation of which was not given. Mr. Mbogc concluded that the evidence before the court has established trespass by the defendants on the balance of probabilities.

Let me make one remark about the cases cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Copies of these case were not restor to source and the citation of affeast one case was not given as [1987] C. A. {unreported} appears to be doubtful and incorrect. Mr. Mbogo must be aware of the practice in this court $\textbf{I}_{\text{which}}$ requires that counsel provides with dithorities on which he/she wishes to rely on in a suit. Be that as it may, in as far

$\cdot$ 11

as trespass to property is concerned, Halsbury's Laws of England vol. 38 third edition states at pg 734 that:

$Gc$

"Trespass is a wrongful act done in disturbance of the possession of property of another against his will."

At page 739 the author says what constitutes trespass to land that:

"Every unlawful entry by one person on land in the possession of another is a trespass for which an action lies, although no actual damages is done. A person trespasses upon land if he wrongfully sets foot on, or rides or drives over it, or takes possession of it, or ----- or fixes anything on it or ------."

The evidence before the court is that the suit kibanja was owned by the late Kiwanuka Kyansimbi. This has a ready been resolved along with the first issue in the suit. Not only is the suit kibanja owned by the estate of the late Kyansimbi, the kibanja was in the possession of the late Kyansimbi at the time the first to the 6th defendants built their houses on it in the face of protests for him. The first to the 6th defendants have since the initial trespass, remained on the property. The first plaintiff itestified that apart from his late father's verbal protests, the late Kyansimbi's counsel M/s Sseruwo and Co. Advocates, wrote to the detendants on the same matter. However, none of the letters was tendered in evidence, their existence therefore remains hearsay which I have taken note of. I do not believe, however, that the late Kyansimbi was in possession of the whole of the kibanja having inherited it from the late Abisagi Batesanaliwo

before the trespass by the first to the sixth defendants. cause of action accrued to Kyansimbi; it survived his death under section 13(1) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions Act [cap 74]), and his right is enforceable by his successors in title, the plaintiffs. The position of the first and seventh defendants with respect to the suit property deserve further comments. I shall begin with the first defendant.

The evidence before court is that the entry of the first defendant to the suit kibanja was initially lawful. The first defendant had the consent of the late Abisagi Batesanaliwo to stay on the property for the purposes of nursing one Peter who later died. My considered view is that up to the death of Peter, the first defendant had a licence to stay on the kibanja, she had the consent of the late Abisagi to stay in a house on the kibanja. In the case of Minister of Health v Bellotti [1944] IALL E. R. 238 Minister of Health vs Holliday - the facts were:

The respondents were evacuees from Gibraltar and occupied premises under licences from Ministry of Health for valuable consideration at an evacuees centre. The licence allowed them to live in their flats to have furniture of their own, which they did, and to have their wives and family, in addition to other amenities Differences arose between the respondents and officials of the Ministry of Health and the respondents were given a week's notice to quit the premises they occupied. The respondents failed to<br>leave when the notices expired, and after an attempt to<br>shout thempt counterproceedings were commenced to obtain orders for possession. For the respondents it was<br>contended, among other things, that the notices were<br>invalid on the ground that time given to vacate the premises was unreasonable short, and therefore, the licences were not effectively revoked.

It was held among other holdings that:

The length of time to be given to licenses on determination of a licence must depend upon the circumstances of any particular case and, the present case, the time limit-was insufficient.

More importantly, court held that-

a notice determining a licence revokes the licence immediately on service and the notice becomes operative on the expiration of a reasonable time, from the date of service, and this is so even though the notice states a period of time for vacation of the premises which is held No particular period of time need be to be too short. stated in the notice.

Though the evidence before court was not clear on the date of Peter's death and the date of the notice given to the first defendant by the late Kyansimbi, I am quite satisfied that such notice was sufficient to terminate the permission the first defendant previously enjoyed of staying on the suit kibanja. The notice gave her sufficient time to arrange alternative accommodation for herself given the evidence that the first notice was given by the late Kyansimbi; and given the fact that the first defendant was still on the suit land at the time this $\mathbf{r}$ . suit was filed in September 1999. She became a trespasser on the rroper'y even before Kyansimbi's death in July 1998. She has been aware that she has no right to stay on the suit property. Besides, the evidence of PW1 which I have accepted as truthful is that when Kyansimbi died and the witness approached all the defendants with a demand that they should vacate the property, the defendants, including the first one, told him that he had no authority over the property because the one who had such authority had already died. I find that the first defendant is a trespasser on the suit kibanja.

As far as the seventh defendant is concerned; I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the trespassed on the suit property. The evidence against him, as testified to by the first plaintiff is as follows:

The 7th defendant doesn't have a house on the $u$ $$ kibanja. He was sued because he was with the first

defendant and sold part of the kibanja to Night Katwe the third defendant. The sale was reduced in the form of

In the agreement Meteke and Najjuma were agreement. sellers and the buyer was Katwe."

But the agreement was not tendered in evidence. In the absence of the agreement, I am not prepared to find that the 7th defendant participated in the sale of part of the property or encouraged the third defendant to purchase the property.

... any case, the syndemics reproduced supra does not constitute trespass by the 7th defendant considered in the light of what constitutes trespass, namely unlawful entry by a defendant on the property which at the time of entry was in possession of another. There is no evidence that the 7th defendant set foot on the

property or himself took possession of it. He is not liable for trespass. But I am satisfied on the evidence that the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth defendants are trespassers on the property and so find them to be trespassers on the suit property. This now brings me to the third and last issue, the remedies available to the parties.

Since the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case against the 7th defendant, the suit against the 7th defendant is dismissed. I make no order as to his costs. For the remaining defendants, the learned Mr. C. Mbogo for the plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiffs are entitled to all the remedies prayed for since they have proved their case on the balance of probabilities. $Mr.$ Mbogo enumerated the remedies being a declaration that the plaintiffs are trespassers on the suit kibanja, general damages for trespass. The learned counsel argued that general damages is, in fact, automatic once trespass is proved; he suggested the sum of shs. 5,000,000 because the defendants even refused to recognise the late Kyansimbi was owner, and the plaintiffs as beneficiaries of the property. On mesne profits, the learned Mr. Mbogc argued that court should award the plaintiffs shs. 30,000,000 which he argued is the loss suffered by the plaintiffs not using the suit property especially the houses located Lisieum. Jounser afrived at the sum of sns. 30,000,000 mesne profit on the basis that all the six defendants have houses on the suit property capable of being let out at rates which would have yielded shs. 30,000,000 for the period the defendants have been in illegal occupation thereof, a period of five years.

The plaintiffs have satisfactorily proved that the suit property was devised to the late Kyansimbi by the late Abisagi. They have equally proved that they are the rightful successors in title to the property. There is therefore no reason why judgment should not be entered in their favour. Judgment is entered for the plaintiffs against the defendants, but severally for trespass. Judgment against the defendants is several, because though the suit arose out of a series of transactions and common question of law or fact arise with regard to these transactions, yet the evidence before court shows that each of the defendants in the suit, occupies a separate portion of the suit kibanja. The evidence also shows that each of the second to sixth defendants separately purchased the portion each of them occupies., from the first defendant in separate transactions. These being the facts, judgment against them cannot be joint.

Judament for the plaintiffs entitles them to other reliefs claimed in paragraph 8 of the plaint. I thus declare that the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth defendants are trespassers to the suit kibanja.

$\mathbf{r}$

Trespass having been proved, I find that it entitles the plaintiffs to the award of general damages. No evidence of any anjury suffered or damages was adduced. T unerefore award the plaintiffs general damages of shs. 1,000,000 - see Armstrong v Sheppard & Shoit Ltd [1959] 2 QB 384. In as far as mesne profits is concerned, I agree with the submissions of the learned Mr. Mbogo that an award for mesne profits should be made

to the plaintiffs. I do not agree with the method the learned counsel used to calculate the quantum thereof. The learned counsel projected his calculations on the rent the six defendants are expected to have realised from the houses each of them constructed on portions of the suit kibanja occupied by each of them. Yet section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act derings mesne profits in such a manner that excludes profits realised by the wrongful occupant because of improvements made by such person on the property. Mesne profits is defined as follows:

Man Jack Charles with a Man Aller of the State

6 B

"Mesne profits" of property means those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might have received with ordinary diligence have received there from, together with interest on such profits, but shall not include profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession."

In view of this definition of mesne profits, my view is that rent derived or which should have been derived from the houses illegally constructed on the suit property cannot be the basis for calculating mesne profits for the plaintiffs. But by constructing houses on the property, the first to the sixth defendants denied the plaintiffs the opportunity of utilising the property to derive income. PW1 testified that he would have wanted to construct thereon houses on it. He has had to postpone his plans and I believe that he has lost economically by this postponement. $\cdot$

The property is located in a suburb of the city. A portion of it measuring 95 feet by 75 feet was sold in 1991 to Institute of Accounting and Business Professions at shs. 3.000.000 [exh P6].

$\cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots$

Another piece was bought by one Gakou it measures 13 a feet by 112 feet by 84 feet by 74 feet Gakou paid shs. 4,500,000 for that There is no evidence of the area occupied by piece [exh P2]. defendants which could have assisted accurately estimate mesne profits against each defendant. But there is evidence that together-"with the two piece's'"sold .by the late Kyansimbi, the kibanja measures The portion trespassed on by the defendants is bigger than the ones already sold. <sup>I</sup> award the plaintiffs shs. 8.000.000 mesne profits. Of this total sum, the first defendant shall pay shs. 4.000.000 the rest of the defendants shall pay the plaintiffs shs. 800.000. one acre. each of the me to more

The plaintiffs are also entitled to an eviction order as well as costs of this suit.

In summary, the following orders are made:

**[**

[W

**07'**

- The suit against the seventh defendant is dismissed, with aj no order as to the seventh defendants costs. - is declared that 2nd, 3rd, <sup>4</sup> th, 5th and 6th bj It defendants are trespassers on part of the suit kibanj a . the 1st, - The plaintiffs ^re awarded general damages for trespass c) the sum of shs. <sup>r</sup> • aef •. n f.ant The shall each pay the plaintiffs shs. 500,000 . 2nd to 'ot;. defendants 5.000.000 of which shs. 2.500.000 shall be - The first to sixth defendants shall pay the plaintiffs shs. d] shall pay shs. 4.000.000 and remaining shs. 4.000.000 shall 8.000.000 mesne profits of which sum the first defendant

be paid by the second to sixth defendants with each defendant paying shs. 800.000.

- e] The defendants shall be evicted from the portion of the occupied by each one of them. suit kibanja - f] The illegal structures erected on the portions of the suit P-roPer^y by each of the. defendants\* shall\* be: removed and'the plaintiffs given vacant possession of these portions of the property. - g] The award of general damages in [c] award of mesne profits -in [d] supra shall bear interest at **I** full. court rate from the date of judgment herein till payment in above as well as the - h] The defendants shall pay the plaintiffs costs of the suit.

**I**

*\* it ■.\** ••

*I*

C. A. JUDGE. 3/10/2000. OKELLO

## 31/10/2001 3.06 p.m.

Mr. Charles Mbogo for the plaintiffs Judgment signed dated ^jjd delivered in open court. Mr. Nkuubi Court Clerk.

C. A JUDGE 31/10/2000. ' . . OKELLt)

be paid by the second to sixth defendants with each defendant paying shs. 800.000.

- e] the suit kibanja occupied by each one of them. The defendants shall be evicted from the portion of - f] The illegal structures erected on the portions of the suit property by eacn of the defendants<sup>1</sup> shall' be:removed and'the plaintiffs given vacant possession of these portions of the property. - g] The award of general damages in [c] **I** full. court rate from the date of judgment herein till payment in award of mesne profits in [d] supra shall bear interest at above as well as the - h] The defendants shall pay the plaintiffs costs of the suit. **<sup>I</sup>**

**I**

**I**

**I**

**I** UDGE. 3/10/2000. C. A. OKELLO

## 31/10/2001 3.06 p.m.

j Mr. Nkuubi Court Clerk. Judgment signed dated ^jid delivered in open court. Mr. Charles Mbogo for the plaintiffs

C. A. OKELL&

JUDGE. 31/10/2000.