Wakilii

Nabuuso and Another v United Methodist Church (Civil Appeal 50 of 2017)

Court of Appeal · [2020] UGCA 2157 · 2020 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court judgment in a civil suit for recovery of land and cancellation of title.
Decision
Appeal dismissed; trial Court's judgment declaring the respondent the bona fide purchaser and lawful owner of the suit land upheld.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial Judge's finding that the 1st appellant sold the suit land to the respondent church on 30 September 1996, surrendering the certificate of title, and that both appellants thereafter fraudulently procured a special certificate of title and transferred the land into the 2nd appellant's name. The 1st appellant's claim of illiteracy failed because she did not assert it in her pleadings or testimony and contradicted herself. The respondent was the bona fide purchaser and lawful owner. The suit was not time barred, the limitation period running from discovery of the fraud in 2001. Appeal dismissed with costs.

Facts

The respondent church operated a Mukono branch on land it rented from the 1st appellant, with the 2nd appellant serving as the branch's pastor and leader. In September 1996 the church bought the suit land from the 1st appellant for UGX 6 million; she executed a sale agreement (exhibit P1) dated 30 September 1996, signed a transfer, and surrendered the original certificate of title, which was deposited with the church's lawyer for registration. The 1st appellant later claimed she had instead sold the land only to the 2nd appellant in September 1995. Both appellants then obtained a special certificate of title on a false declaration that the original title had been lost in 1983, and registered the land in the 2nd appellant's name in 2001. The respondent sued for cancellation of that title, alleging fraudulent collusion. Evidence showed inconsistencies and falsehoods in the appellants' accounts, including conflicting purchase prices and transfer dates. The 1st appellant raised illiteracy only at submissions, not in pleadings or testimony.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence on record.
  2. Whether the sale agreement dated 30 September 1996 between the respondent and the 1st appellant was the authentic sale agreement.
  3. Whether the sale agreement, special certificate of title and transfer of the suit land to the 2nd appellant were drawn, procured and effected to defeat the respondent's unregistered interests.
  4. Whether the respondent was a bona fide purchaser for value and lawful owner of the suit land.
  5. Whether the trial Judge failed to correctly apply the law protecting illiterate persons.
  6. Whether the respondent's suit was barred by limitation.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • All orders made by the trial Judge upheld.
  • Appellants to pay the respondent the costs of the appeal and of the court below.

Key headnotes

Illiterates Protection Act — Burden to prove illiteracy — Failure to plead or assert illiteracy
A party who does not plead or assert in testimony that she is illiterate, thereby denying the opposing party the opportunity to test the claim in cross-examination, cannot later rely on the Illiterates Protection Act to impugn documents she executed; the burden of proving illiteracy lies on the party asserting it.
Pleadings — Departure from pleadings — Evidence contrary to pleadings
A party who departs from his or her pleadings and gives evidence contrary thereto is deemed to be lying, and such inconsistent evidence cannot be relied upon to establish a fact.
Bona fide purchaser for value — Registration of Titles Act s.181 — Effect of vendor's fraud against third party
A purchaser bona fide for valuable consideration without notice of adverse claims obtains a title that cannot be impeached on account of fraud of a previous registered proprietor, provided the purchaser is not himself guilty of fraud or sharp practice; fraud disentitles a registered proprietor from the protection of section 181 of the Registration of Titles Act.
Registration of Titles Act s.92(1) — Statement of true consideration — Concealment as fraud
Where a transferee inserts a lesser figure on the transfer form as consideration than the price actually paid, to defraud Government of revenue, such concealment of the true consideration amounts to fraud and the person is not a bona fide purchaser.
Illegality — Court cannot sanction an illegality once brought to its attention
Once an illegality is brought to the attention of a court of law, the court cannot sanction it; documents tainted with dishonesty and fraud cannot be enforced by the court.
Limitation — Recovery of land — Accrual of cause of action — Fraud
In determining the limitation period the court looks only at the pleadings; where the claim is founded on fraud, time runs from when the plaintiff discovered the fraud, and a suit for recovery of land filed within twelve years of that discovery is not time barred under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Memorandum of appeal — Rule 86(1) — General and vague grounds
A ground of appeal that broadly alleges failure to properly evaluate evidence without specifying which evidence or which conclusions were wrongly reached is too general, offends Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, and will be rejected.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Illiterates Protection Act Cap. 78 ss.1, 2 and 3
  • Registration of Titles Act s.92(1)
  • Registration of Titles Act s.181
  • Limitation Act Cap. 80 s.5
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 30(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 86(1)
  • Penal Code Act s.342
  • Penal Code Act s.347
  • Penal Code Act s.351

Cases cited (8)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Bitereremo v Sirura (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1991)
  • Betty Kizito v Dawid Kizito and Others (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2018)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Kisugu Quarries Ltd vs Administrator-General [1999] 1 EA at page 162
  • David Ssejaka Nalima v Rebecca Musoke (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1985)
  • Madhivani International v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2004)
  • Uganda Aluminium Ltd v Restuta Twinomugisha (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2000)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.