Bayego v The Chief Registrar of Titles (Civil Appeal 20 of 1994)

Observed later treatment

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 Court held the appeal was competent: an order made by the High Court under the Registration of Titles Act is appealable as of right under s.68 of the Civil Procedure Act, since s.77(1) restricts only orders made under that Act and cannot exclude orders made under other statutes. On the merits, where the affidavit evidence disclosed genuine questions of fact, including a boundary dispute with an adjoining registered proprietor, the trial judge was entitled under s.130 of the Registration of Titles Act to direct that an issue be tried before making any rectification order. She had not exercised her discretion improperly. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court order directing the matter to trial upheld.

Facts

The appellant, Joseph Bayego, held a certificate of title to land comprised in Block 12 plots 787 and 728 at Mengo, Kampala District. He contended that during the conversion of measurements from acres to hectares, the area of Block 12 plot 422, recorded as 0.51 of an acre, was erroneously stated as 0.15 hectares instead of 0.12 hectares. A former Chief Registrar of Titles had agreed to correct the alleged error and caused the boundaries to be resurveyed, but her successor declined to make the correction. The appellant applied to the High Court for an order compelling the Chief Registrar to rectify the title. The Chief Registrar's position, supported by affidavit, was that no error existed because the discrepancy had been corrected on conversion to the metric system, and that the adjoining registered proprietor, Linus Sebowa Katamba, opposed any further demarcation because of a boundary dispute with the appellant. The matter proceeded on two affidavits only. The High Court directed that the matter be resolved by trial.

Issues

1. Whether the appeal was competent, namely whether an order made by the High Court under the Registration of Titles Act is appealable to the Supreme Court as of right.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in directing that the issues be settled by trial instead of ordering the respondent to rectify the alleged error on the appellant's certificate of title.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (10)

• Registration of Titles Act s.130
• Registration of Titles Act s.178(a)
• Registration of Titles Act s.190
• Registration of Titles Act s.197
• Civil Procedure Act s.68
• Civil Procedure Act s.77(1)
• Civil Procedure Act s.82
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 40 rule 1(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 48 rule 1
• Surveys Act

Cases cited (1)

• Malolla International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Nateete Twale Muslim Community Limited v Commissioner Land Registration & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 155 of 2023)
• Kiwanuka v Micro Finance Centre Limited and Another (Civil Appeal 159 of 2014)
• Niwagaba v Law Development Centre (Ciivil Application No. 18 of 2006)

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