THE REPUBLI C OF UGANDA
IN THE IIIGH COURT OT UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(LAND DIVISIONI
MISCELLANBOUS CAUSE ITO.O8 OF 2022
5 SPRIIYGS INTERNATIOIYAL HOTEL::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::i:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICAIIT
VERSUS
I. ATTORNEY GENERAL
2. INSPDCTOR GEIYERAL OF POLICE
3. ANGELLA KATATUMBA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i:;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::RESPONDENTS
10 Before: Ld Justlce Alexa.^ dra Nkoaqe Ruqadua.
Ruli^9.
Introd.uctio^:
This application brought by Noticc of Motion undcr Sectlon 98 o.f the Ctvtl procedure Act co,p.Zl,
Sectron 33 of the Judlcqture Act cq.p.73, and Ord.er 52 ,-ules I and. 3 of the Clull proced.ure
15 Rules Sf 7i-.1 sccks an ordcr dirccting thc 2n,l rcspondcnt to implcmont thc prcsidcntial dircctivcs to
in Block 244 plot 97O & 977 l,,^d at
assist thc applicant take posscssion of hcr propcrty siluatcd
Lluyenga fank Htll, and that this court makcs any such ordcrs as dccms fit for thc enhanccmcnt of
justicc.
crounds of the .rpplicatiota:
20 The grounds upon which this application is prcmiscd arc containcd jn thc affidavit in support thercof
deponed by Mr. Mulondo Abdu, thc applicant's administrator who statcd inter olia that thc applicanr is
the registcrcd proprietor of thc land comprised in 244 plot 9"O & 971 l.rrl.d dt Muyenga To:nk hlll
(hereinafier rekrred to as ',he -suit land), which is currcntly being illcgally occupied by thc anr
respondent.
25 That while on 28rh February, 201 I thc applicant cntered into a hotcl managcment leasc with one Georgc
Kamugisha, he was restrictcd from occupying the premises by Mr. Bonny Katatumba (now dcceased)
who is also thc 3rd respondent's fathcr.
That when thc applicant petitioncd llis Excellency thc l,rcsidcnt of Uganda, thc 2",r rcspondent was
directed to assist the applicant in taking possession of thc suit propcrty, but all cfforts and constant
30 reminders by the applicant to gct assistancc from thc 2h,t rcspondent havc bccn rcndcred futilc.
That this application is properly before this court, which hasjurisdiction to grant eviction orders for thc
enhancement of justice, and thc applicant's right to enjoy quict possession has bccn violated by the
respondents.
ln addition, that the 3rd respondcnt's continued illcgal occupation of thc suit propcrty not only
35 contradicts the Constitution of thc Republic of Uganda, but also violates the right to own property and
,that it is just, fair, and equitable that this application is granted.
ti"at
1
t
An affidavit of servicc was liled on 31"1 January, 2022. Only the lsr rcspondcnt was however effectively
served. No response was filcd. In thc affidavit of scrvicc the process server did not explain whcther or
not the 2"d respondent was asked to acknowlcdgc reccipt of court papers and why they did not offer
any explanation as to why they could not acknowlcdgc rcceipt.
5 l'or the 3'd respondent this was the key pcrson. Shc had been contacted on hcr number. She directed
the process server to her counsel who howevcr dcnicd having received instructions from her. Thcre ts
no explanation as to why if she was in occupation of the suit property the process server did not effcct
service to her in person, at the said premises.
The applicant hercin sceks an order dirccting thc 2n<l respondent to implement the Presidential
10 directives to assist thc applicant take possossion ofthc suit property and rcfers to a IIigh court decision,
dctails of which werc not howcvcr providcd.
Declslon bu cotrt:
Court noted that the applicant did not extract thc orders of court and in thc cvent that it was donc,
they were not attached to this application. Thc applicant bcsides did not apply for consequential orders
15 from this court in rclation to the concluded case or cxplain why it chosc to pursue the Presidcntial
directives for execution by court instead of the cxisting orders of court, which orders were presumably
awaiting execution.
Under those circumstances, the possibility of issuing conflicting orders/dircctives would not be too
remote. It is in the normal course of their duties for courts to causc thc execution of its own orders. The
20 execution of orders grantcd by the cxecutivc must bc dcalt with by the issuing office.
For those reasons, the application is dismissed
No award of costs.
I so ord.er.
l) I 6
25 A*
Alexand.ra Nk
$rte IA a t d
ab ,6
Rugddya
.tudge
lV^ October, 2022.
ftfolz'tt
