Sserunjogi v Rev. Fr. Kituuma (Civil Suit 71 of 2021) [2022] UGHCLD 297 (7 November 2022)

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MPIGI

# CIVIL SUIT NO. 71 OF 2021

## SSERUNJOGI BERNARD………..………………………………………PLAINTIFF

#### 5 VERSUS

REV. FR. KITUUMA FRANCIS……………………………….…………. DEFENDANT

# BEFORE: HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE OYUKO ANTHONY OJOK, JUDGE

### Ruling

- 10 The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendant claiming for; a declaration that the defendant breached the sales agreement with the plaintiff; a declaration that the sales agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void; an order that the defendant compensates the plaintiff the current market value of his kibanjas situated on the plaintiff's land on Mawokota Block 162 land at Mpambile - 15 in Mpigi District as per the Government Valuer's report;

In the alternative; an orderthat the plaintiff compensates the defendant the current market value of his kibanja situated on the plaintiff's land on Mawokota Block 162 land at Mpambile Mpigi District as per Government Valuer's Report;

In the alternative; an order that the plaintiff and the defendant equally share the 20 defendant's kibanja situated on the plaintiff's land on Mawokota Block 162 land at Mpambile, Mpigi District; general damages; exemplary damages, interest on the market value of the Suitland at a rate of 24% per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full; costs and interest on the exemplary damages at a rate of 24 % per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full.

#### 25 Representation:

At the commencement of the hearing Mr. Stephen Lweza appeared for the plaintiff, while Mr. Nsimbe Ibrahim appeared for the defendant.

While the hearing of the case was on going with one witness that is the plaintiff having testified the plaintiff sought leave pursuant to Order 18 Rule 13 of the Civil

30 Procedure Rules to recall and reexamine the witness that is PW1 on the number of agreements executed between him and the defendants and the exact date of execution.

The defendant on the other hand in reply admitted to the prayers of the plaintiff under paragraph 3(b) of the plaint and paragraphs 7(b) of the plaint and prayed that judgment under Order 13 Rule 6 be entered on admission.

The plaintiff did not object to the prayers of the plaintiff in regard to judgment on 5 admission being entered as far as the 2 paragraphs are concerned.

Counsel for the defendant noted that now the case is settled and prayed for costs to which the plaintiff disagreed.

# Decision of court:

- Indeed upon listening to both submissions of both counsel, it seems to be that the 10 advocates are to blame for either misadvising their clients or not preparing properly for the case. The plaint was very clear and so was the Written Statement of Defence and yet in the joint scheduling Memorandum under the agreed facts. Both the plaintiff and defendant executed a sales agreement dated 19th September 2019. The same agreement is what the parties are now saying is null and void. - 15 I will therefore, not blame any of the parties but resolve that since issue 1 (whether the defendant breached the sales agreement with the plaintiff) and issue II (whether the sales agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void) are solved, each party bears its own costs. The file is hereby closed.

20 ………………………….. OYUKO ANTHONY OJOK JUDGE 07/11/2022