Court rules caretaker who refuses to vacate land is trespasser

Kampala, Uganda: The High Court of Uganda has ruled that a caretaker who continues occupying land after the owner withdraws consent becomes a trespasser and cannot claim compensation for expenses allegedly incurred on the property without proof of a valid agreement.

The ruling was delivered by Hon Lady Justice Patience T.E. Rubagumya of the Commercial Division in Civil Suit No. 1462 of 2023, Mugoda Patrick v Benon Kyeyune Mukasa & Another, decided on February 10, 2026.

The case had been filed by Patrick Mugoda, who had been appointed as a caretaker of land belonging to Benon Kyeyune Mukasa in Kyeitabya, Ssaabagabo Sub-County, Kyadondo County.

According to court records, Mugoda claimed that after being appointed caretaker in 2006, he spent money managing the property, including compensating occupants, hiring surveyors and security guards, and engaging lawyers to handle land disputes.

He argued that the landowner had orally agreed to reimburse him for those expenses before he surrendered possession of the land.

But Kagoda later sued Mukasa and another defendant, Fred Guweddeko, who claimed they had incurred extensive costs while managing the property. These included compensating alleged kibanja occupants, hiring lawyers, surveyors, and guards, clearing bushes, and losses arising from the destruction of crops.

He sought more than Shs180m in reimbursement and additional relief before handing over vacant possession. Mukasa denied authorising any of the expenditures and counterclaimed that Mugoda had refused to vacate the land despite repeated requests, thereby trespassing on the property.

No proof of compensation agreement

However, Justice Rubagumya found that Mugoda failed to prove the existence of any enforceable agreement requiring the landowner to reimburse him. “Other than the plaintiff’s averments, no evidence was adduced to prove that the 1st defendant was made aware of the said expenses or acknowledged them,” the judge ruled.

The court emphasized that although oral contracts can be valid, they must be supported by credible evidence showing that the parties intended to create legal obligations.

“In the premises and in consideration of all the above, I find that the Plaintiff has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that there was an oral agreement between him and the 1st Defendant for the reimbursement of any sums,” the judge ruled.

The court also noted that the caretaker appointment letter only authorised Mugoda to look after the house and safeguard the boundaries, but did not permit him to incur or claim expenses on behalf of the owner.

Caretaker status ends once consent is withdrawn

Justice Rubagumya further ruled that although Mugoda initially occupied the land lawfully as a caretaker, the situation changed once the owner demanded that he vacate. “Any continuous occupation of the same against the consent of the owner without a justified reason amounts to trespass,” the judge held.

The court found that the landowner had requested the caretaker to vacate the property in 2020, but he refused to leave, claiming he needed compensation for the expenses he allegedly incurred.

Having dismissed the compensation claim, the court concluded that the caretaker had no legal justification to remain on the property.

In the final orders, the court dismissed Mugoda’s suit and ruled in favour of the landowner on the counterclaim. “It is hereby declared that the Plaintiff is a trespasser on the suit land,” the judgment reads.

The court ordered the caretaker to give immediate vacant possession of the land and awarded UGX 70 million in general damages to the landowner for being deprived of the use and enjoyment of his property.

Justice Rubagumya also awarded costs of the suit and counterclaim to the defendants.

The ruling in this landmark case underscores that caretakers or licensees who remain on land after permission is withdrawn risk being treated as trespassers under Ugandan law.