Amuyeru v Seruwagi & Another (Miscellaneous Application 53 of 2023)

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Holding

The High Court upheld two of three preliminary objections raised by the respondents and dismissed the application. The court held that the orders sought — vacating a caveat and effecting transfer — are final and consequential orders under section 177 of the Registration of Titles Act and can only be sought by ordinary suit, not by notice of motion. The court also found that the sale agreement required the attesting witness to give evidence under section 67 of the Evidence Act, necessitating a full trial. The application was dismissed without delving into its merits.

Outcome

Application dismissed on preliminary objections without determination on merits

Facts

The applicant claimed to have purchased land comprised in freehold register volume MKO1322 folio 20 from the 2nd respondent on 9 September 2022 for UGX 100,000,000, paying in cash. The 2nd respondent handed over signed transfer forms, his tax identification number, national ID copy, passport photograph and the duplicate certificate of title. The applicant later discovered the 1st respondent (wife of the 2nd respondent) had lodged a caveat on the land. The 1st respondent contested on grounds of want of spousal consent, claiming it was family land. The 2nd respondent denied the transaction was a sale, claiming instead it was a credit facility agreement. The applicant brought an application to show cause why the caveat should not be vacated and the land transferred into his name. The respondents raised preliminary objections that the matter required full trial rather than determination by notice of motion.

Issues

1. Whether the application involves complex questions of law or fact that merit adjudication at full trial rather than by notice of motion.
2. Whether the orders sought contain matters that require oral evidence and thus cannot be determined in the instant application.
3. Whether the application is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of court process.
4. Whether the applicant is entitled to have the caveat vacated and the suit land transferred into his name.

Orders

• The 1st and 2nd objections raised by the Respondents are hereby upheld.
• Application No. 53 of 2023 is hereby dismissed.
• No order as to costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (16)

• Registration of Titles Act s.140(1)
• Registration of Titles Act s.140(2)
• Registration of Titles Act s.177
• Registration of Titles Act s.59
• Registration of Titles Act s.64
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 Rule 28
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 Rule 29
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 Rule 30
• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.67
• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33
• Land Act Cap 227 s.38A(4)
• Land Act s.39
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended) Article 126(2)(a)

Cases cited (9)

• Rutungu Properties Ltd v Linda Harriet Carrington & Another (Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2010)
• Laila Lubega v Ali Lubega & DFCU Bank Ltd (Civil Suit No. 118 of 2010)
• Mayanja Bosco v Kasikururu Lois Okumu & Chris Katsigazi (High Court Original Suit No. 5 of 2008)
• Safina Bakulimya & Another v Yusuf Musa Wamala (Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2007)
• Deox Tibingana v Mirembe Andrew Tumwebaze [2020] UGHC
• Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
• Patel v Commissioner Land Registration & Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 87 of 2009)
• Park Royal Ltd v ULC & 3 Others (High Court Land Division Miscellaneous Cause No. 46 of 2014)
• Tororo Cement v Frokina International (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.