Vivo Energy Ug. Ltd v Lydia Kisitu [2017] UGSC 75 (30 March 2017)

Flynote

Land

Case summary

From the evidence that was adduced, it was found that the appellant had good reasons to make inquiries as a bona fide purchaser for value would have done. Having failed to do so, he could not be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice when there was fraud. Therefore, the court found that the courts below had not erred in holding that the appellant’s title was tainted with fraud.   With regards to mesne profits, it was found that the respondent was entitled to mesne profits for loss of earnings during the period the appellant was in continued possession of the suit land, which amounted to trespass and wrong possession.   Concerning quantification of general damages, the court found that the amount was not too high to call for intervention of court.   In the result, the court upheld the decision of the courts below and the awards.

---