THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
CIVIL SUIT NO. 343 OF 2002
ZENA MUHAMMED NEE ZENA
SAMUSUDIN :::::::::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFF
DR. SIMON SSENTUMBWE :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DEFENDANT
BEFORE: THE HON. MR. JUSTICE R.O. OKUMU WENGI
In cross examination he stated:-
On the other hand, Mr Nicholas Sali another valuer, gave evidence for the defendant. He put the value
He also told court that he did not provide for disturbance allowance nor had he been told that the purpose of his valuation was to determine a compensation claim. He did not value a mango tree on the property and did not see my effect on the building by the demolition despite that he noticed a missing part.
The defendant in his testimony conceded to having demolished part of the plaintiff’s house that protruded into his newly acquired plot.
From the evidence the essence of the case is that the two adjoining plots belonged to a family. When they were distinctly separated by a survey it happened that the building on the land covered an area such that a small part of it lay on a different plot. Once this plot was sold by a Mortgagee the defendant was constrained to develop it and did so after destroying what he saw as a menace. The plaintiff also played the stubborn Kibanja holder and was unwilling to accept a mere shs 500,000/=. I was not impressed by the defendant’s efforts if any to resolve the plaintiffs claim yet he went ahead to attack the integrity of the plaintiff’s house with little care.
In considering the matter I have come to agree with the valuation of Mr Babumba Kyeyune as it is more specific on compensation and presented the picture of the building before its partial though substantially dissipating demolition, as well as the effect of the demolition taking into account a disturbance element. I would accordingly say that the plaintiff would be entitled to compensation from the defendant in the sum of shs 1,000,000/= for the demolished part of his house, and shs 400,000/= for the pit latrine. Since the plaintiff lost the use of the space where the building stood he lost land usufruct value which was valued at shs 3,000,000, which I would discount to shs 1,500,000/=. The total sum would thus be shs 2.9 million. A disturbance allowance was put at shs 2 million which would also be discounted to shs 1 million. In consequence I enter Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for shs 3.9 million (three million nine hundred thousand only) with costs.
R.O. Okumu Wengi
Mbogo for Plaintiff
Plaintiff’s Attorney in Court
Senabulya Court Clerk.
Ruling read in open court in presence of all parties.
Sgd by: R.O. Okumu Wengi