Wakilii

Ausi Matovu v Registrar of Titles and Another (Civil Suit 878 of 1994)

High Court · [1995] UGHC 90 · 1995 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit seeking cancellation of fraudulently issued title and reinstatement of original registered proprietorship
Decision
Special certificate cancelled, original proprietor reinstated on the register, and 2nd defendant evicted from the suit property

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.

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

Where a registered proprietor has never sold his land and retains the original certificate of title, and the defendant claims to have purchased from another person of the same name but cannot produce the alleged seller or any original sale agreement, the court will find fraudulent transfer and reinstate the original proprietor under section 56 of the Registration of Titles Act.

Outcome

Special certificate cancelled, original proprietor reinstated on the register, and 2nd defendant evicted from the suit property

Facts

The plaintiff was the registered proprietor of Busiro Block 397 Plot 185 measuring 95 acres at Bweya. In 1969, he leased the land to three individuals of Asian origin (Sadrudin, Badrudin, and Samsudin Gram Hussein) for 49 years. When the lessees were expelled from Uganda, the property reverted to the Custodian Board. While the lessees were out of the country, the Registrar of Titles cancelled the plaintiff's certificate of ownership and issued a special certificate in favour of the 2nd defendant, purportedly based on a transfer from the plaintiff. The fraudulent transfer came to light in 1995 when the expatriated lessees returned to Uganda under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 and sought to repossess their properties. The 2nd defendant claimed he lawfully purchased the land from a different person named Ausi Matovu but could not produce that person, the original sale agreement, or the lawyer who allegedly facilitated the transaction.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff was the duly registered proprietor of the suit property before the fraudulent transfer to the 2nd defendant's name in 1988.
  2. Whether the plaintiff Ausi Matovu in the pleadings is the genuine Ausi Matovu appearing in the title of the suit property.
  3. Whether the land, the subject matter of this suit, was fraudulently transferred in the names of the 2nd defendant.
  4. Whether the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff can be sustained.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff.
  • Declaration that the plaintiff Ausi Matovu is the rightful owner of land described as Busiro Block 397 Plot 185 situate at Dewe-Lutembe.
  • The special certificate of title issued by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant Sir John Bagaire is cancelled.
  • The Registrar of Titles is directed to rectify the register by reinstating Ausi Matovu as the registered proprietor and cancelling Sir John Bagaire.
  • The registered certificate of title Exh. P2 (lease agreement) is reinstated to the plaintiff with the incumbrance as registered.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Eviction order issued against the 2nd defendant Sir John Bagaire from the suit property.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Indefeasibility of Title — Protection of Registered Proprietor Under Section 56 RTA
A registered proprietor whose certificate of title is supported by a valid lease agreement and who has never sold or transferred the land is entitled to full protection under section 56 of the Registration of Titles Act, and the court will order reinstatement where a fraudulent transfer has been established.
Tort Law — Fraud — Burden of Proof in Fraud Allegations
Where a defendant claims to have purchased land from a person bearing the same name as the registered proprietor but cannot produce the alleged seller as a witness, cannot produce the original sale agreement, and cannot locate the lawyer who allegedly facilitated the transaction, the court will find that no lawful purchase occurred and that the transfer was fraudulent.
Civil Procedure — Exparte Proceedings — Entitlement to Proceed Where Defendant Served but Absent
Where a defendant has been duly served with hearing notice through their advocate on record but neither the defendant nor the advocate appears on the hearing date, and no good cause is shown for non-attendance, the court may allow the plaintiff to proceed exparte under Order IX rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Late Entry of Counsel — Terms for Joining Proceedings After Evidence Has Closed
Where new counsel seeks to join exparte proceedings after the plaintiff has closed his evidence, the court may permit the new counsel to join for submission purposes and to cross-examine witnesses at the counsel's own costs, provided the plaintiff consents to make the witnesses available.

Legislation cited (1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ausi Matovu v Registrar of Titles and Another (Civil Suit 878 of 1994) [1995] UGHC 90 (17 November 1995)
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.