Wakilii

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

High Court · [1995] UGHCLD 4 · 1995 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaration of title and cancellation of fraudulent transfer
Decision
Plaintiff's title reinstated; second defendant's certificate cancelled; eviction order issued against second defendant

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

Held that the plaintiff Ausi Matovu was the rightful registered owner of Busiro Block 397 Plot 185 and that his certificate of title had been fraudulently cancelled and replaced with a special certificate issued to the second defendant. The court found that the second defendant failed to prove he had lawfully purchased the land from another Ausi Matovu. The plaintiff's title was reinstated and the second defendant's certificate cancelled under section 56 of the Registration of Titles Act.

Outcome

Plaintiff's title reinstated; second defendant's certificate cancelled; eviction order issued against second defendant

Facts

The plaintiff Ausi Matovu claimed he was the registered owner of Busiro Block 397 Plot 185 measuring 95 acres at Bweya. On 2 July 1969, he leased the land to three individuals of Asian origin 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 first defendant cancelled the plaintiff's certificate of ownership and issued a special certificate in favour of the second defendant, based on an alleged transfer from the plaintiff to the second defendant. The expatriated lessees returned to Uganda in 1995 and repossessed their properties under the Expropriated Properties Act of 1982. The plaintiff discovered the fraudulent transfer and brought this suit. The second defendant claimed he had lawfully purchased the land from a different Ausi Matovu and that the plaintiff was an impostor.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff was the duly registered proprietor of the suit property before the fraudulent transfer to the second defendant's name in 1988.
  2. Whether the plaintiff Ausi Matovu in the plaintiff's 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 name of the second defendant.
  4. Whether the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff can be sustained.

Orders

  • The plaintiff Mr 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 first defendant (the Registrar of Titles) to the second defendant Sir John Bagaire is cancelled.
  • The first defendant the Registrar of Titles rectifies the register by reinstating Ausi Matovu as the registered proprietor and cancelling Sir John Bagaire.
  • The defendants pay costs of the suit.
  • The defendant Sir John Bagaire be evicted from the suit property Block 397 Plot 185 land at Lutembe Dewe.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Fraudulent Transfer — Registration of Title — Protection of Registered Owner
A registered proprietor whose certificate of title has been fraudulently cancelled and replaced with a special certificate issued to another person is entitled to have the register rectified and his title reinstated under section 56 of the Registration of Titles Act.
Land & Property — Fraudulent Transfer — Burden of Proof — Identity of Transferor
Where a defendant claims to have purchased land from a person bearing the same name as the registered proprietor, the defendant bears the burden of proving that the person from whom he purchased was a different individual and that he was a bona fide purchaser for value. Failure to produce the original sale agreement, call the alleged seller as a witness, or adduce evidence of the alleged seller's whereabouts is fatal to such a defence.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Substitution of Counsel — Duty to Serve Notice
Where a defendant's counsel on record has been duly served with a hearing notice but neither the counsel nor the defendant appears at the hearing, the court may properly allow the plaintiff to proceed ex parte. A new counsel seeking to join proceedings ex parte at an advanced stage must apply for leave and may be permitted to do so on terms including bearing his own costs for cross-examining witnesses who have already testified.

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 Tittles and Another (Civil Suit 878 of 1994) [1995] UGHCLD 4 (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.