The High Court has dismissed an application by Movit Products Limited seeking an early victory in its land dispute with Uganda Prisons Service after finding that the government had not made a clear admission that would justify ending part of the case without a full trial.
Justice Flavia Nabakooza said although government records showed that three disputed plots are registered in Movit’s name, that alone was not enough to conclude that the company was entitled to the declarations, eviction orders and injunctions it was seeking against the Uganda Prisons Service.
In 2024, Movit sued the attorney general over eight plots on Busiro Block 536 at Sazi Buwaya, measuring about 202 acres.
The cosmetics company also accused Uganda Prisons of trespassing onto the land, unlawfully occupying it and interfering with its possession. It asked the court for eviction orders, permanent injunctions and damages.
Before the main case could be heard, Movit returned to court with an interlocutory application asking the court to make what is known as a “judgment on admission” in respect of the land.
Movit argued that there was no longer any real dispute over ownership of those plots because the government had effectively admitted that they belonged to Movit.
The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Movit’s lawyer, Tonny Tumukunde who told the court that when the main suit came up for mention in 2025, the attorney general sought time to verify the status of the disputed land.
He said the attorney general wrote to the Commissioner for Land Registration requesting a report on the land and the report concluded that the three plots were registered in the name of Movit Products Uganda Limited.
Movit argued that this amounted to an unequivocal admission by the government that the company owned the land.
The company further argued that because ownership of those three plots was no longer disputed, there was no reason for the court to wait for a full trial before declaring Movit the lawful owner, declaring Uganda Prisons a trespasser, issuing eviction orders and granting a permanent injunction.
Tumukunde, Movit’s lawyer, argued that the purpose of a judgment on admission is to enable a court to give a prompt decision where the opposing party has made admissions that leave no real issue for trial.
He submitted that once a party has clearly admitted the facts, “the court is not required to engage in a full evidentiary process, as doing so would only serve to delay justice and increase costs unnecessarily.”
On the other hand, Principal State Attorney Imelda Adongo, who represented the government, counterargued that the land registration report was not an admission capable of supporting judgment on admission.
She told the court that an admission must be “unambiguous, clear, unequivocal and positive” before such a judgment can be entered.
She argued that merely confirming that certificates of title are registered in Movit’s name did not amount to admitting that the company was entitled to exclusive possession of the land or that Uganda Prisons had trespassed.
Adongo said the dispute was more complicated because there was another pending case before the Family Division in which another individual was challenging the distribution of the estate from which the land originated.
That pending case, she said, showed there were competing claims over the land and that ownership issues could only be resolved after hearing evidence from all parties.
In her ruling, Justice Nabakooza explained that a judgment on admission can only be granted where the admission is clear and leaves no room for doubt.
“Unless the admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional, the discretion of the court should not be exercised to deny the valuable right of a defendant to contest the claim,” she said.
After examining the report relied upon by Movit, Justice Nabakooza agreed that the land register showed the three plots were registered in the company’s name, but she discovered that this did not amount to an admission that Movit was entitled to immediate possession of the land.
“Whereas the report states that the noted plots of land are registered in [Movit’s] name, it does not admit that it is entitled to exclusive possession of the same as against [government’s] agent.”
She also noted that in its defence, the Attorney General maintained that the Uganda Prisons Service had an interest in the disputed land, which she said made it difficult “to infer an unambiguous, clear and unequivocal admission of trespass by the Uganda Prisons Service.”
Justice Nabakooza said Movit still has the burden of proving that Uganda Prisons unlawfully occupied the land and considered the existence of the pending Family Division case challenging ownership of the estate from which the land originated.
“I find that the subject report does not amount to an admission of liability or facts. On that account, [Movit] has failed to satisfy the strict legal thresholds required for entering a judgment on admission. Consequently, the application lacks merit, and it is dismissed,” she ruled.
She said the main suit will proceed to a full hearing where the court will determine ownership of the disputed land and whether the Uganda Prisons Service unlawfully occupied it.
The case will come up for mention on September 24, 2026.
