THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MBARARA
GORDON WAVAMUNO................................................. PLAINTIFF
PIDSON WAVAMUNO.................................................. DEFENDANT
BEFORE: THE HON. MR. JUSTICE LAWRENCE GIDUDU
The Plaintiff is the elder brother of the Defendant. It is not in dispute that they worked together in several businesses and later developed a love/hate relationship that culminated in this suit. The two are disputing over pieces of land formerly comprised in plots 14, 57, 61, 62 and 63 Block 3 at Kashari, Nkonkojeru in Mbarara Municipality. These original plots have since been subdivided into various smaller plots.
By this suit, the Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendant titles of land which were generated or mutated from plots 14, 57, 61,62 and 63 all in Block 3 Kashari - Nkonkojeru, a declaration that he is the lawful registered owner of the said plots, a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from the said plots and damages.
The Defendant on the other hand denies the Plaintiff’s claims and counterclaims for a declaration that he is the lawful owner of land formerly comprised in plots 14, 57, 61, 62 and 63 Block 3 Kashari
- Nkonkojeru and a further declaration that the Plaintiff obtained registration by fraud and also seeks general damages.
The summary of the Plaintiff’s case is that in 1968, he acquired plot 14 Block 3 from the Omugabe of Ankole and duly paid 130/= as the purchase price. He processed a title into his names. Later the Omugabe sold to the Plaintiff more land and he got more titles that include plots 57, 61, 62 and 63 Block 3 Kashari.
In the meantime, the Plaintiff invited his brothers like Eriabu Wavamuno and the Defendant to live with him at Nkonkojeru on plot 14. The Plaintiff also assigned the Defendant key roles in his various companies and eventually both Eriabu and the Defendant built homes on plot 14.
Due to political instability in the mid-eighties, The Plaintiff went into self exile and delegated his businesses to the Defendant. He authorized the Defendant to transfer plot 14 into his names (See exhibit “P5”) without consideration. Later in 2001, the Plaintiff demanded re-transfer of plot 14 into his names and the Defendant duly signed transfer forms (exhibit P. 11) while the Plaintiff paid him a kind of gratitude by giving him a lorry vide exhibit P10. This lorry proved difficult to maintain and the Plaintiff replaced it with a Mercedes Benz car.
Later in 2007, the Plaintiff instructed the Defendant to get a survey to sub-divide plots 14, 57, 58, 61, 62 and 63 into smaller plots so that he could sell them off to developers. (See
Instructions in exhibits