Court name
High Court of Uganda
Judgment date
23 April 2001

Mujuni v Uganda Land Commission (Civil Suit-1996/463) [2001] UGHC 15 (23 April 2001);

Cite this case
[2001] UGHC 15


 


THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
CIVIL SUIT NO.463 OF 1996

RODNEY MUJUNI
(SUING BY HIS NEXT FRIEND MONICA MAKORO)……………….. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
THE UGANDA LAND COMMISSION………………………………. DEFENDANT
BEFORE: THE HON. MR. JUSTICE E.S. LUGAYIZI.
JUDGMENT

The plaintiff (who is a minor) sued the defendant through his next friend Ms. Monica Makoro. Among other things, he sought a declaration that he is the rightful owner of land and developments comprised in Leasehold Register Volume 1632 Folio 22 Plot 59, Naguru Drive. The defendant who was apparently served with court process did not enter appearance. Consequently, the case was fixed for hearing; and it proceeded exparte.
The plaintiff called one witness, that is to say, Ms. Monica Makoro (PW1) who testified as follows. That the plaintiff is her son and he is 14 years old. Sometime in 1987 she applied for a lease on behalf of the plaintiff in respect of Plot 59 Naguru Drive. That plot is a commercial plot. the defendant granted the plaintiff an offer in respect of the plot which the plaintiff in turn accepted. Ms. Makoro paid the necessary service charges and later on a lease title was issued in favour of the plaintiff. The lease was for a duration of 5 years. However, the plaintiff did not develop the land during that period. This was because the Controlling Authority did not service the area with roads, etc. to facilitate development. At the end of the lease term therefore, the plaintiff applied for a renewal of the lease. The defendant granted it to him. It was for a further period of two years. During that period the plaintiff built a boy’s quarters on the plot and he was preparing to develop it further when the lease expired. The plaintiff applied for its renewal, but the defendant did not respond. Later on, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant had offered the said plot to one Cornelius Tamale Mukasa; and it was not willing to revisit that decision. Hence this suit.
It is quite clear that the plaintiff was granted a 5 year lease by the defendant in respect of the suit premises. That lease was registered in his favour on 28th July, 1987; and a copy of it is on record as