The High Court has affirmed that compulsory acquisition requires strict compliance with constitutional and statutory procedures – mere gazetting or lodging a caveat does not constitute acquisition.

Waboga David
Sep 15
5 min read

Updated: Sep 16

Facts

The plaintiffs, Sebalamu John, Freedom Mart Ltd, and Grapes Ltd, are the registered proprietors of 20 parcels of land in Rubaga, Kampala, described in Block 16 and various FRV KCCA folios. They purchased the land for commercial purposes, intending to construct a shopping mall. The plaintiffs had engaged architects, obtained some approvals from the Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA), and commenced construction up to the foundation level.

They also secured credit facilities to finance the project.On September 28, 2015, the Uganda Railways Corporation (URC), an agent of the defendant (the Attorney General), published a “caveat emptor” notice in the Daily Monitor, alleging that the plaintiffs fraudulently acquired the land and prohibiting dealings on it.

On November 6, 2015, the defendant issued Statutory Instrument No. 64 of 2015, gazetting the plaintiffs’ land as public land for the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) Eastern Route project. No compensation was provided to the plaintiffs. The caveats were later withdrawn, but the plaintiffs claimed that the notices stalled their development, causing financial losses.

The plaintiffs sought declarations that the defendant’s actions were illegal, unconstitutional, and constituted trespass, as well as compensation for the land, lost business opportunities, mesne profits, general and punitive damages, interest, and costs.

ISSUES

The court framed the following issues for determination:

Whether the plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the suit land.
Whether the plaintiffs’ land was compulsorily acquired.
Whether the defendant unlawfully interfered with the plaintiffs’ use of the suit land.
What remedies are available to the parties.

SUBMISSIONS

Plaintiffs’ Submissions

Issue 1 (Ownership)

The plaintiffs relied on Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act, asserting that their certificates of title are conclusive proof of ownership. Search certificates from August 2019 confirmed their status as registered proprietors. They argued that the defendant failed to prove fraud, as required under Section 160 of the Act, to challenge their titles.

Issue 2 (Compulsory Acquisition)

The plaintiffs cited Article 26 of the 1995 Constitution and the Land Acquisition Act, arguing that the gazetting of their land as public land without compensation was unconstitutional. They referenced UNRA v. Irumba Asuman (Const. Appeal No. 02 of 2014), which held that compulsory acquisition without prior compensation is invalid. The caveat emptor and Statutory Instrument No. 64 of 2015 were cited as evidence of acquisition.

Issue 3 (Unlawful Interference)

The plaintiffs argued that the caveat emptor and statutory instrument violated their constitutional right to use their property under Article 26, halting their development plans.

Issue 4 (Remedies)

The plaintiffs sought declarations of illegality, compensation for the land’s market value, lost business income (estimated at UGX 3,041,000,000), mesne profits (UGX 3,000,000,000), general damages (UGX 1,500,000,000), punitive damages (UGX 200,000,000), interest at 25% per annum, and costs.

Defendant’s Submissions

Issue 1 (Ownership)

The defendant conceded that the plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the suit land.

Issue 2 (Compulsory Acquisition)

The defendant argued that no compulsory acquisition occurred, as the plaintiffs’ land was not within the SGR’s approved alignment. A surveyor testified that the plaintiffs were not listed as project-affected persons entitled to compensation. The defendant relied on River Oli Division Local Government v. Sakaram Abdallah Okoya (HCCA No. 18 of 2013), asserting that acquisition requires strict compliance with the Land Acquisition Act, including physical possession, which did not occur.

Issue 3 (Unlawful Interference)

The defendant contended that no unlawful interference took place, as the caveats were withdrawn, and the plaintiffs remained in possession. Any actions were taken in good faith.

Issue 4 (Remedies)

The defendant argued that claims for business losses were speculative, lacking documentary evidence like business plans or tenancy agreements. They cited Villa Members Trust v. Uganda National Road Authority (HCCS No. 902 of 2022), which rejected speculative claims. General damages, if awarded, should be proportional, and mesne profits were inapplicable since the plaintiffs were in possession.

COURT’S FINDINGS

Issue 1: Whether the plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the suit land

The court found that the plaintiffs are the registered proprietors, as evidenced by unchallenged search certificates and supported by Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act. The defendant’s failure to prove fraud under Section 160 confirmed the plaintiffs’ ownership. The issue was resolved in the affirmative.

Issue 2: Whether the plaintiffs’ land was compulsorily acquired

The court noted that compulsory acquisition is a state prerogative under Article 26 and 237 of the Constitution, governed by the Land Acquisition Act. The process requires a statutory declaration, notice to proprietors, valuation, and compensation before possession.

The plaintiffs relied on the caveat emptor and Statutory Instrument No. 64 of 2015 to claim acquisition. However, the defendant’s witness testified that the government lost interest in the land, and the caveats were withdrawn. The court’s locus visit confirmed the plaintiffs’ possession, with no government occupation.

The court held that no compulsory acquisition occurred, as the government did not complete the process (e.g., valuation or possession). The claim for compensation was premature. This issue was resolved in the negative.

Issue 3: Whether the defendant unlawfully interfered with the plaintiffs’ use of the suit land

Article 26 guarantees the right to own and use property without interference. The court found that the caveat emptor and statutory instrument disrupted the plaintiffs’ development plans, as evidenced by stalled construction observed during the locus visit.

The court defined unlawful interference as a violation of proprietary or possessory rights. The notices affected the plaintiffs’ proprietary rights by restricting their ability to deal with the land. This issue was resolved in the affirmative.

Issue 4What remedies are available to the parties

Declarations

The court declined to grant declarations that the land was compulsorily acquired without compensation, as no acquisition occurred. However, it declared the plaintiffs as rightful owners and issued a permanent injunction against interference.

Compensation for Business Losses

The plaintiffs’ claim for UGX 3,041,000,000 was rejected due to lack of cogent evidence (e.g., business plans, tenancy agreements, or revenue projections). The court cited Villa Members Trust to emphasize that speculative claims are not compensable.

Mesne Profits

The court denied mesne profits (UGX 3,000,000,000), as the plaintiffs were in possession and collecting rent from occupants, per Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act and Luwedde Kasule v. Board of Governors, Caltec Academy (MA 1861 of 2022).

General Damages

The court awarded UGX 500,000,000 for inconvenience and loss caused by the defendant’s actions, considering the stalled development and the plaintiffs’ continued possession, per UCB v. Kigozi (2002) and James Fredrick Nsubuga v. Attorney General (HCCS No. 13 of 1993).

Punitive Damages

The court awarded UGX 50,000,000, finding that the defendant’s actions (issuing the caveat emptor and statutory instrument) were oppressive, as they persisted without resolution since 2015, per Obongo v. Municipal Council of Kisumu (1971) EA.

Interest

The court awarded 10% per annum on general and punitive damages from the date of judgment until payment in full, following Premchandra Shenoi v. Maximov Oleg Petrovich (SCCA No. 09 of 2003).

Costs

The plaintiffs, having partially succeeded, were awarded costs under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.

HOLDING

The court partially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering:

The plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the suit land.
A permanent injunction against the defendant, its agents, or any persons claiming title from interfering with the suit land.
The plaintiffs are at liberty to utilize or deal with the suit land.
General damages of UGX 500,000,000 with 10% interest per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
Punitive damages of UGX 50,000,000 with 10% interest per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.

The court declined to grant compensation for the land’s market value, business losses, or mesne profits, and rejected the plaintiffs’ request for 25% interest.

Key Principles

Registered title is conclusive proof of ownership (s.59 RTA), unless impeached for fraud.
Compulsory acquisition requires strict compliance with constitutional and statutory procedures – mere gazetting or lodging a caveat does not amount to acquisition.
Interference without possession can still be unlawful if it prevents lawful use and development of property.
Compensation for business loss requires cogent evidence; speculative projections are insufficient.
General and punitive damages may be awarded where State action unjustifiably disrupts proprietary rights.