Wakilii

Bakaze Mukasa v Nanozi & 3 Ors (Civil Suit No. 631 of 2007)

High Court · [2012] UGHC 55 · 2012 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for cancellation of title, specific performance of lease extension, damages for trespass and breach of contract, and eviction
Decision
Fraudulently issued titles cancelled; plaintiff's titles confirmed; lease extension to be completed; damages awarded

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's registered leasehold title to plot 8, registered earlier in time, takes priority over a subsequently registered title fraudulently obtained by the first defendant over the same land. Where a district land board grants a lease to a third party despite having granted a lease extension to the original lessee and receiving payment of all fees, fraud is established and the improperly issued title must be cancelled under Registration of Titles Act s.77. Exemplary damages may be awarded against a government agency for arbitrary and fraudulent conduct violating a citizen's fundamental property rights.

Outcome

Fraudulently issued titles cancelled; plaintiff's titles confirmed; lease extension to be completed; damages awarded

Facts

The plaintiff held a registered 44-year leasehold for plot 8 commencing 1 December 1991, registered 6 January 1995. He also held a five-year lease for plots 6 and 7 which expired 1 July 1986. In November 1989 he applied to Uganda Land Commission for a full-term lease extension for plots 6 and 7 and paid all assessed fees. The second defendant (Luwero District Land Board) granted the extension and instructed the Commissioner for Lands to prepare the necessary title. In November 2001 the first defendant fraudulently obtained a certificate of title over plot 8 (the same land as the plaintiff's plot 8) and also obtained a lease over plots 6 and 7. The first defendant never inspected the land and the second defendant granted the leases despite knowing of the plaintiff's existing lease and approved extension. The first defendant was served by substituted service and did not defend; default judgment was entered. The second defendant did not appear at hearing despite being served.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff's title deed to plot 8 is valid.
  2. Whether the 1st Defendant's title deed to plot 8 is valid.
  3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to be issued with a full term leasehold title to plots 6 and 7.
  4. Whether the 1st Defendant's leasehold title to plots 6 and 7 is valid.
  5. Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendants committed fraud.
  6. Whether the 2nd Defendant acted lawfully when they offered plots 6, 7 and 8 to the 1st Defendant.
  7. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • The certificates of title for Bulemeezi Block 563 Plot 8 (LRV 2939 Folio 2) and Bulemeezi Block 563 Plots 6 and 7 (LRV 2939 Folio 3) registered in the 1st Defendant's names be cancelled by the Commissioner for Land Registration.
  • The 2nd Defendant should complete the extension to full term of the lease comprised in Bulemeezi Block 563 Plots 6 and 7 in favour of the Plaintiff.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 150,000,000 to be paid by the 1st Defendant.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded exemplary damages of UGX 15,000,000 to be paid by the 2nd Defendant.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Land Registration — Priority of Competing Titles — Registration of Titles Act s.48
Where two certificates of title purport to affect the same estate or interest in land, the certificate registered earlier in time takes priority under s.48 of the Registration of Titles Act.
Fraud in Land Transactions — Elements — Knowledge of Existing Interest
A person who procures registration of a title in order to defeat an unregistered or prior registered interest of another person of which he is proved to have had knowledge is guilty of fraud justifying cancellation of the fraudulently obtained title under s.77 of the Registration of Titles Act.
Lease Extension — Contractual Right to Renewal — Effect of Compliance with Terms
Where a lease agreement contains a covenant that upon written notification to the lessor, payment of reserved rent, and observance of covenants, the lease will be renewed for a further term, the lessee who complies with these conditions acquires an enforceable right to the lease extension which the lessor cannot disregard by granting a lease to a third party.
Cancellation of Title — Grounds — Fraud under Registration of Titles Act s.77
A certificate of title procured by fraud is void against all parties or privies to the fraud under s.77 of the Registration of Titles Act and may be cancelled by court order. Once land has been brought under the Registration of Titles Act, the title cannot be impeached or de-registered except for fraud.
Government Agencies — Arbitrary and Fraudulent Conduct — Liability for Exemplary Damages
Exemplary damages may be awarded against a government agency or statutory body where its officers act arbitrarily and fraudulently in violation of a citizen's fundamental property rights protected under the Constitution, even though exemplary damages are not awarded for every wrongful act of an officer of state.
Special Damages — Proof and Quantification — Requirement for Documentary Evidence
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved with cogent documentary evidence such as receipts. Where a claimant states itemised costs without providing receipts or other proof of payment, the court cannot assess or award special damages.
Mesne Profits — Proof of Annual Value — Basis for Assessment
Loss of rental income (mesne profits) is assessed on the basis of the annual value of the premises at the relevant time. A claimant must aver in his pleadings the alleged annual value of the premises and must be prepared to prove it. It is not sufficient merely to state a figure without demonstrating how it was arrived at.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (9)

  • Kampala District Land Board & George Mitala v Venancio Babweyaka & 3 Ors (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank & Ors (SCCA No. 4 of 2006)
  • Matovu & 2 Ors v Sseviri & Anor [1979] HCB 174
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damaniko (U) Ltd [1990-94] EA 141
  • J. W. Kazoora v Rukuba (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1992)
  • Costa Bwambale & Anor v Yosofati Mate & Ors [2001-2005] HCB 76
  • Assist (U) Ltd v Italian Asphalt & Haulage & Anor (HCCS No. 1291 of 1999)
  • George Kasedde Mukasa v Emmanuel Wambedde & Ors (Civil Suit No. 459 of 1998)
  • Moses Kizige v Muzakawo Batolewo [1981] HCB 66

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bakaze Mukasa v Nanozi & 3 Ors (Civil Suit No. 631 of 2007) [2012] UGHC 55 (23 March 2012)
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.