Court of Appeal Confirms a UGX 30BN award to Top Kampala Lawyer
Citation: Attorney General v. Festus Akunobera, Court of Appeal of Uganda, 2025 UGCA 324 (19 September 2025).
Introduction
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Attorney General v. Festus Akunobera is a significant contribution to Ugandan land jurisprudence, particularly concerning compulsory acquisition, competing land titles, and the evidentiary standards for compensation. The judgment underscores the constitutional guarantee under Article 26(2) of the 1995 Constitution, which prohibits deprivation of property without prompt and adequate compensation.
Factual and Procedural Background
The dispute arose from land measuring 1,531.96 hectares in Katikara, Kasonga Parish, Kikuube District, originally acquired by the respondent’s grandfather in 1934 under Bunyoro-Kitara Kingdom customary tenure. The land passed through successive generations until the respondent obtained a freehold certificate of title in 2019, following clearance by the Bunyoro-Kitara Kingdom Land Board and Hoima District Land Board.
In 2018, the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) settled refugees on the land without the respondent’s consent. The respondent sued, seeking redress for unlawful compulsory acquisition, destruction of natural forest, and loss of rental income. The High Court found in his favour, awarding UGX 30,067,542,000 in compensation, UGX 420,000,000 in general damages, and interest at 23% per annum.
The Attorney General appealed, arguing that the claim was time-barred, the respondent’s title invalid due to a pre-existing Uganda Land Commission (ULC) title issued in 2016, and that the damages awarded were excessive.
Issues and Holdings
1. Limitation of Actions
The appellant contended that the cause of action accrued in 1960 when the Government first leased land from the Bunyoro-Kitara Kingdom for the Kyangwali Refugee Settlement. The Court rejected this submission, holding that the cause of action accrued in 2018, when OPM unlawfully encroached upon the respondent’s distinct parcel. The suit filed in 2020 was therefore within the 12-year limitation period under the Limitation Act and the 6-year period under the Registration of Titles Act (RTA).
2. Validity of Competing Titles
While ULC held a title issued in 2016, the Court found it defective, as the Government’s 49-year lease over the broader Kyangwali Settlement had expired in 2009 without renewal. Conversely, the respondent’s title was traced back to legitimate customary ownership in 1934 and was lawfully converted to freehold. The Court reaffirmed that a title procured without legal justification is defeasible under section 160(d) of the RTA, even if issued earlier in time.
3. Compensation for Unlawful Deprivation
The Court upheld the High Court’s award of UGX 30,067,542,000, relying on the unchallenged expert valuation evidence. The absence of a counter-valuation by the Government was decisive. In line with precedents such as Attorney General v. Henley Property Developers Ltd and Attorney General & Another v. Byaruhanga & Others, the Court reiterated that where state agencies unlawfully dispossess citizens, compensation must reflect the full market value of the property.
4. General Damages
The Court revised the award of general damages from UGX 420,000,000 to UGX 100,000,000, noting that the trial judge improperly treated specific rental expenses as general damages. The Court reaffirmed the principle that general damages compensate for inconvenience and non-quantifiable loss, while specific losses must be claimed as special damages and strictly proved.
5. Interest
The award of 23% per annum interest was upheld. The Court emphasized that interest serves to compensate claimants for being deprived of the use of their property and falls within judicial discretion, particularly where deprivation is prolonged and government conduct is dilatory.
6. Procedural Competence of the Appeal
The Court noted that the appeal was filed out of time contrary to Rule 83(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. While this rendered the appeal incompetent, the Court nonetheless considered the merits to avoid multiplicity of proceedings should the matter be remitted by the Supreme Court.
Significance of the Decision
This judgment is instructive in several respects:
- Clarification on Limitation: The Court distinguished between historical settlement schemes and contemporary encroachments, holding that limitation runs from the latter.
- Priority of Valid Title over Defective Title: It reaffirmed that earlier titles do not automatically prevail where procured without legal foundation.
- Role of Valuation Evidence: The decision highlights the criticality of presenting counter-evidence in compensation disputes; failure to do so leaves courts constrained to adopt unrebutted expert reports.
- Judicial Discretion in Remedies: The ruling carefully delineates between general and special damages and affirms wide judicial discretion in awarding interest to ensure substantive justice.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Attorney General v. Festus Akunobera strengthens constitutional property protections by holding the state to strict standards in land acquisition. It underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing state interests in refugee resettlement with individual property rights, thereby reinforcing the constitutional principle that deprivation of property must only occur through lawful processes and with prompt, fair, and adequate compensation.
Who is Festus Akunobera?
Festus is an Advocate of the Courts of Judicature in Uganda and an Attorney & Counselor at Law in the State of New York.
He holds a Master of Laws in International Taxation from New York University, where he was a Hauser Global Scholar. He also holds a Bachelor of Laws (First Class Honours) from Makerere University where he was the winner of the Chief Justice’s Prize, as the best overall student in his class.
Festus is a tax expert and is reputed for advising businesses on complex tax issues in relation to cross-border transactions. Festus’ recent experience includes serving as a tax adviser for the Consor tium during negotiations for a US$ 4bn refinery in Uganda. Festus was the tax adviser for the investor in a USD 620 million steel plant project in Uganda. Festus is currently representing Heritage Oil & Gas in a USD 434 million litigation before the High Court of Uganda.
Festus has served as tax technical adviser for the World Bank, the African Development Bank, the Government of Liberia and the Republic of Somaliland and the Ministry of Finance of Uganda. Previously. Festus served as an international tax consultant at Price Waterhouse Coopers’ New York and Uganda offices.
Festus has, on occasion, been called as expert witness on Ugandan tax law in the London Commercial Court and in the High Court of Uganda. He has also appeared pro hac vice in tax litigation before the Rwanda Commercial Court.
Festus is a lecturer of international tax law at the East African School of Taxation, and has served as guest lecturer on international tax at Duke University (North Carolina, USA) and Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration (Vienna, Austria). Festus has on several occasions been invited to train the Uganda Revenue Authority and the Uganda Tax Appeals Tribunal on complex tax matters.
