High Court at Mbale Clarifies That Ownership of Unregistered Land May Be Established Through Long and Continuous Occupation, and Affirms That Land Validly Donated to a Public Body Cannot Be Reclaimed

Facts The plaintiff filed this suit for a declaration that he is the lawful and beneficial owner of the suit of land situated in Kibuku Town Council, Kibuku District. He contended that the defendant fraudulently and without any colour of right trespassed on the suit land and developed it with permanent structures, therefore including the district administration block and other related district officers.

The plaintiff averred that the defendant, Kibuku District Local Government, created in 2010 as a local council administration unit, subsequently constructed new buildings on approximately 4 acres of his land without his consent. The defendant continued to occupy these premises by accommodating various government offices, to the plaintiff's detriment. He noted that the defendant's predecessor, Kibuku Sub-County, had previously used the land, including a portion of approximately 50ft by 50ft that the plaintiff's father had donated for a public health centre, for over 30 years.

The defendant denied trespass, pleading that the suit land was not titled and had, at all times, been used by the Government to accommodate various government offices for over 30 years.

Legal Representation

Mr. Were Safiyu represented the Plaintiff. In contrast, Mr. Olucho Isaac from the Attorney General’s Chambers represented the defendant.

Issues for determination

The parties proposed four (4) issues in their joint scheduling memorandum for determination by the court.

1. Whether the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit land, entitled to compensation from the defendant?

2. Whether the defendant is a trespasser on the suit land?

3. Whether the defendant’s entry or acquisition of the suit land was tainted with fraud?

4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Submissions of the Parties

Plaintiff's Submissions

Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff was the lawful and beneficial owner of the suit land by virtue of a freehold certificate of title registered in his name for the land comprised in Block 2, Plots 277 and 218. He contended that the defendant had, without his consent, constructed buildings on approximately 4 acres of his registered land and continued to occupy the same. He further submitted that the disputed land fell on both registered and unregistered portions, and that even the unregistered part rightfully belonged to him by virtue of his father's gift. He prayed for declarations of ownership and trespass, compensation of UGX 60,000,000 as the open market value of the suit land, UGX 30,000,000 for loss of income, general damages of UGX 300,000,000, mesne profits, and costs of the suit.

Defendant's Submissions

Kibuku District Local Government, the defendant, submitted that the suit land was not titled and had at all times been used by the Government for over 30 years to accommodate various government offices, including a public health centre. It did not file a counterclaim, nor did it plead or particularize any claim of fraud against the plaintiff's registration in its written statement of defence. A defence witness (DW1) testified that the plaintiff's father held only a leasehold title and that the plaintiff had illegally converted the tenure to freehold; however, this evidence was found to be a departure from the defendant's pleadings and was accordingly disregarded.

Court's Findings

1. Ownership of the Registered Land

The court found that the plaintiff was the lawful owner of the part of the disputed land falling within the description on his freehold certificate of title for Block 2, Plots 277 and 218. The court noted that the defendant had neither filed a counterclaim nor pleaded and particularized fraud against the plaintiff's registration, as required under Order 6 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1.

Relying on the Supreme Court's position in Okello v Uganda National Examination Board, it was observed that statutory protection of title prevented courts from lightly setting aside registered ownership in the absence of compelling proof of a recognized exception. No such grounds were established on the evidence.

"Statutory protection of title prevents courts from lightly setting aside registered ownership in the absence of compelling proof of one of the recognised exceptions," as per the Supreme Court, Okello v Uganda National Examination Board (cited with approval)

2. Ownership of the Unregistered Land

The court found that, concerning the untitled portion of the disputed land, the defendant had the better claim of ownership. It was observed that apart from verbal assertions, the plaintiff adduced no visible or tangible evidence to prove ownership of the unregistered portion.

The court applied its own precedent in Kayemba Ronald Watuwa v Makokha Yafesa and Others [2026] UGHC 68, where it had held that ownership of unregistered land could be sufficiently proved by evidence of user. The locus visit confirmed the defendant was in occupation and utilization of that portion, establishing it as the equitable lawful owner thereof.

"Ownership of unregistered land can be sufficiently proved with evidence of user," per the case of Kayemba Ronald Watuwa v Makokha Yafesa and Others (Civil Suit No. 51 of 2018) [2026] UGHC 68

3. Trespass

The court found that the defendant was a trespasser on the suit land to the extent that it had constructed its premises on the land described in the plaintiff's freehold certificate of title. The court applied the Supreme Court's definition in Lutaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd [2003] UGSC 62, which held that trespass to land occurs when a person makes an unauthorized entry upon land and interferes with another's lawful possession.

"Trespass to land occurs when a person makes an unauthorised entry upon land and thereby interferes, or portends to interfere, with another person's lawful possession of that land," per the Supreme Court, in Lutaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd [2003] UGSC 62

4. DW1's Testimony Disregarded

The court held that DW1's testimony alleging fraudulent conversion of tenure by the plaintiff was a complete departure from the defendant's written statement of defence. Parties are bound by their pleadings, per Order 6 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1, and a defendant may rely only on an unpleaded defence if it arose after institution of the suit or filing of the defence. As no such circumstances applied, the court disregarded DW1's evidence to the extent it departed from the defendant's pleadings.

Remedies Awarded

Compensation

To be assessed per Government Valuer report; registered land less donated portion.

The court declined to award the specific special damages claimed, noting that no valuation report had been placed before it. The plaintiff had pleaded UGX 60,000,000 in the plaint but testified to UGX 480,000,000 in his witness statement, an inconsistency the court found unacceptable. It instead ordered that compensation be assessed upon the plaintiff obtaining a Government Valuer's report on the current market value of the bare, undeveloped encroached land. Upon receiving such compensation, the plaintiff was ordered to hand over the necessary mutation documents to cause transfer of that land to the defendant.

"Special damages are such damages as the law will not presume to be the consequences of the defendant's act... they must therefore always be explicitly claimed in the pleadings and, at trial, must be proved by evidence proving both that the loss was incurred and that it was the direct result of the defendant's conduct." Per the Supreme Court, SBI International Holdings AG (U) Ltd v COF International Company Ltd [2025] UGSC 15

General Damages

UGX 50,000,000 (Uganda Shillings fifty million).

On general damages, the court awarded UGX 50,000,000, reasoning that the defendant had been in occupation of the disputed land since 2010, and that the plaintiff had on numerous occasions engaged the defendant's officers to no avail. The court applied the principle of restitutio in integrum—restoring the plaintiff as nearly as possible to the position he would have been in had the trespass not occurred, as endorsed in Tushabe Chris v Cooperative Bank Ltd [2025] UGSC 35.

Mesne Profits

The court declined to award mesne profits on the same factual basis as the general damages already granted.

Costs of the suit were awarded to the plaintiff as the successful party, per Section 27(1) & (2) of the Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282.

Final Orders (Decree)

a. The plaintiff is the lawful owner of the part of the disputed land falling within the description on the freehold certificate of title registered in his name, for the land comprised in Block 2, Plots 277 and 218, situate at Kibuku.

b. Based on user evidence, the defendant is the equitable lawful owner of the part of the disputed land that does not fall on the plaintiff's certificate of title.

c. The defendant is a trespasser on the suit land to the extent that it constructed its premises on the land described in the plaintiff's certificate of title.

d. The plaintiff shall be compensated upon obtaining a valuation report from the Government Valuer establishing the current monetary value of the bare/undeveloped land encroached upon, guided by Block 2, Plots 277 and 218, less the portion donated by the plaintiff's father to Kibuku Sub-County.

e. Upon receiving compensation under (d), the plaintiff shall hand over the necessary mutation documents to cause the transfer of the compensated land to the defendant.

f. The plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 50,000,000 (Uganda Shillings fifty million).

g. The plaintiff is awarded costs of the suit.

Read the full case

Lwalwa Dauson v Kibuku District Local Government 2026 UGHC 416 (27 April 2026).pdf

Download PDF • 550KB

Key Takeaways

1. A defendant who wishes to impeach a certificate of title on grounds of fraud must specifically plead and particularize fraud in the written statement of defence per Order 6 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Evidence of fraud adduced through witness testimony, but not pleaded, will be disregarded. Parties are bound by their pleadings.

2. Courts will not lightly set aside registered ownership without compelling proof of a recognized exception. Trespass by a public body does not displace a registered proprietor's title.

3. Where land is unregistered, ownership may be proved through evidence of long and continuous user or occupation. On unregistered land, the party with the better evidence of use will prevail, even against a certificate-holder who makes only verbal claims.

4. Special damages must be specifically proved, inconsistent pleading is fatal. Courts will not speculate on quantum. A claimant who pleads one figure but testifies to a vastly different figure, and who produces no valuation report, will not recover the full sum prayed for. A Government Valuer's report is the appropriate evidentiary vehicle for compensation on land encroachment.

5. Mesne profits will not be awarded where general damages already cover the same loss. To do otherwise would amount to unjust enrichment. Courts will decline to award mesne profits on the same factual basis as the general damages already granted.

6. Even where a government body is found to be a trespasser, the court may fashion a remedy, such as a compensation-and-transfer order, that balances the private owner's rights against the public interest served by the occupying premises, rather than ordering vacant possession.

7. Where a predecessor in title gifted a portion of land to a public body, that donated portion is excluded from the computation of compensation for encroachment. Successors in title cannot claim compensation over land the family itself gave away.