Wakilii

Attorney General v Henley Property Developers Limited n (Civil Appeal 5 of 2023)

Supreme Court · [2024] UGSC 8 · 2024 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second civil appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal
Decision
Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal's award of UGX 50 billion compensation plus 15% per annum interest to the respondent upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 Supreme Court dismissed the Attorney General's second appeal. It held that the respondent, having conducted three register searches all confirming the vendor as registered proprietor and a boundary survey, exercised reasonable due diligence and was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Fraud was neither specifically pleaded nor proved against the respondent or vendor, and the nemo dat rule did not apply because the vendor held a valid title at the time of sale. The Commissioner Land Registration's negligent creation, maintenance and cancellation of the title rendered Government liable in compensation under the Registration of Titles Act. The UGX 50 billion award and 15% interest were not excessive given the high-value property in a fast-growing industrial belt.

Facts

In 2011 the respondent company expressed interest in land at Namasaga, Mukono, registered as East Buganda Block 171 Plot 6, measuring about 123.83 hectares. Nantume Flomera Nakalema, administrator of the late Kiwanuka Samuel Kaliginya's estate, presented as owner. The respondent conducted three searches at the Mukono District Land Office (all confirming the vendor as registered proprietor) and commissioned a boundary survey. It purchased the land for about UGX 6.1 billion, an addendum reflected a transfer to Nabunjo Manjeri Kiwanuka, and the respondent was registered as proprietor on 8 May 2013. In 2016 the Commissioner Land Registration discovered the land formed part of a larger, earlier-registered title (Freehold Register Volume 64 Folio 18, Kasenso Estate) belonging to Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited (SCOUL), registered in 2007. On 5 September 2016 the Commissioner cancelled the respondent's title as issued in error. The respondent sued the Attorney General for compensation for loss flowing from the Commissioner's acts, having relied on the register and searches in paying the purchase price.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondent had good title to the suit land.
  2. Whether the respondent was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
  3. Whether the award of UGX 50,000,000,000 as fair valuation/compensation for the suit land was manifestly high and excessive.
  4. Whether the award of interest at 15% per annum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full was manifestly high and excessive.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The decision and orders of the Court of Appeal are upheld.
  • Costs of this Court and of the courts below are awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Land Registration — Bona Fide Purchaser for Value Without Notice — Due Diligence Under the Torrens System
A purchaser who conducts register searches confirming the vendor as registered proprietor and commissions a boundary survey exercises sufficient due diligence and is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, against whom no defect of title can be imputed absent proof of fraud.
Pleadings — Fraud — Requirement to Plead Particulars and Standard of Proof
A party alleging fraud must specifically plead its particulars and prove it to a standard higher than the ordinary balance of probabilities; fraud must be attributable, directly or by necessary implication, to the transferee.
Transfer of Title — Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet — Vendor Holding Registered Title
The nemo dat rule does not apply where the vendor held a valid certificate of title at the time of the sale, since the vendor could pass the registered interest she possessed to the purchaser.
Registrar's Powers — Cancellation of Title — Error Under Section 91(2)(a) Land Act
The error envisaged under section 91(2)(a) of the Land Act is the registrar's own error, not a registration effected on a properly executed transfer instrument; a title created, surveyed and confirmed cannot be cancelled by the registrar at will and ought to be set aside only by a court on valid grounds.
Government Liability — Loss Caused by the Registrar — Section 185 Registration of Titles Act
A person who sustains loss or damage through the exercise or supposed exercise of the registrar's powers under the Registration of Titles Act may recover damages against the Government, which is vicariously liable for the Commissioner Land Registration's negligent creation, maintenance and cancellation of a certificate of title.
Award of Interest — Section 26 Civil Procedure Act — Appellate Interference with Discretion
The award of interest under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act is discretionary, and an appellate court will not interfere unless the trial court exercised its discretion unjudicially or was clearly wrong; a higher rate may be justified where the claimant was deprived of a commercial opportunity to invest and prevailing lending rates are high.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Registration of Titles Act s.46
  • Registration of Titles Act s.48
  • Registration of Titles Act s.59
  • Registration of Titles Act s.68
  • Registration of Titles Act s.136
  • Registration of Titles Act s.176
  • Registration of Titles Act s.185
  • Registration of Titles Act s.186
  • Land Act s.91
  • Civil Procedure Act s.26
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995

Cases cited (17)

  • Hilda Wilson Namusoke & 3 Others v Owalla's Home Investment Trust (E.A) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2017)
  • Hilda Wilson Namusoke & Others v Owalla's Home Investment Trust (E.A) Ltd & Anor (Civil Application No. 14 of 2019)
  • Citizens Concern Africa v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2019)
  • Padron v The Minister of Natural Resources & 2 Others (Claim No. 671 of 2012)
  • Vivo Energy Uganda Ltd v Lydia Kisitu (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2015)
  • Uganda Posts & Telecommunications v Abraham Kirunda (Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1995)
  • Kampala Land Board & Another v Venansion Babwevaka & Others (Civil Appeal No. 57 of 2005)
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1992)
  • ECTA (U) Ltd v Geraldine S. Namurimu & Josephine Namukasa (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1994)
  • B.M Technical Services Ltd v Crescent Transporters Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2002)
  • Tito Buhingiro v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2014)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Pandya v R (1957) EA 336
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Uganda Development Bank v National Insurance & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1995)
  • Mbogo v Shah [1968] EA 93
  • Shah v. Allu [1974] 14 EACA
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.