Springs International Hotel v Attorney General and 2 Others (Misc Cause No. 8 of 2022) [2022] UGHCLD 203 (17 October 2022)

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

# (LAND DIVISION)

## **MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO.08 OF 2022**

$\mathsf{S}$ SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

### **VERSUS**

### 1. ATTORNEY GENERAL

- 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE - 3. ANGELLA KATATUMBA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

#### 10 Before: Lady Justice Alexandra Nkonge Rugadya.

### Ruling.

### Introduction:

This application brought by Notice of Motion under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act cap. 71, Section 33 of the Judicature Act cap.13, and Order 52 rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure

15 **Rules SI 71-1** seeks an order directing the $2^{nd}$ respondent to implement the presidential directives to assist the applicant take possession of her property situated in **Block 244 plot 970 & 971 land at** Muyenga Tank Hill, and that this court makes any such orders as deems fit for the enhancement of justice.

# Grounds of the application:

- 20 The grounds upon which this application is premised are contained in the affidavit in support thereof deponed by Mr. Mulondo Abdu, the applicant's administrator who stated inter alia that the applicant is the registered proprietor of the land comprised in 244 plot 970 & 971 land at Muyenga Tank hill (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land'), which is currently being illegally occupied by the 3rd respondent. - 25 That while on 28<sup>th</sup> February, 2011 the applicant entered into a hotel management lease with one George Kamugisha, he was restricted from occupying the premises by Mr. Bonny Katatumba (now deceased) who is also the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent's father.

That when the applicant petitioned His Excellency the President of Uganda, the 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent was directed to assist the applicant in taking possession of the suit property, but all efforts and constant reminders by the applicant to get assistance from the $2^{nd}$ respondent have been rendered futile.

That this application is properly before this court, which has jurisdiction to grant eviction orders for the enhancement of justice, and the applicant's right to enjoy quiet possession has been violated by the respondents.

In addition, that the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent's continued illegal occupation of the suit property not only 35 contradicts the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, but also violates the right to own property and that it is just, fair, and equitable that this application is granted.

(lenko of

An affidavit of service was filed on 31<sup>st</sup> January, 2022. Only the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent was however effectively served. No response was filed. In the affidavit of service the process server did not explain whether or not the 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent was asked to acknowledge receipt of court papers and why they did not offer any explanation as to why they could not acknowledge receipt.

$\mathsf{S}$ For the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent this was the key person. She had been contacted on her number. She directed the process server to her counsel who however denied having received instructions from her. There is no explanation as to why if she was in occupation of the suit property the process server did not effect service to her in person, at the said premises.

The applicant herein seeks an order directing the 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent to implement the Presidential 10 directives to assist the applicant take possession of the suit property and refers to a High court decision, details of which were not however provided.

# Decision by court:

Court noted that the applicant did not extract the orders of court and in the event that it was done, they were not attached to this application. The applicant besides did not apply for consequential orders

15 from this court in relation to the concluded case or explain why it chose to pursue the Presidential directives for execution by court instead of the existing orders of court, which orders were presumably awaiting execution.

Under those circumstances, the possibility of issuing conflicting orders/directives would not be too remote. It is in the normal course of their duties for courts to cause the execution of its own orders. The execution of orders granted by the executive must be dealt with by the issuing office.

For those reasons, the application is dismissed.

No award of costs.

I so order.

Alexandra Nkonge Rugadya Judge 17<sup>th</sup> October, 2022.