Wakilii

Buruhani Namudala v Stefano Kazibwe (Civil Suit No. 818 of 1991)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 115 · 1992 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex parte application for temporary injunction to restrain Registrar of Titles from registering dealings in disputed property
Decision
Application struck out for being time-barred and incompetent

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

Application for ex parte temporary injunction against the Registrar of Titles dismissed. The court held the application time-barred and incompetent, as the 60-day statutory period for obtaining a court order under section 149 of the Registration of Titles Act had expired. The court further held that the injunction should have been directed against the defendant, a party to the suit, not the Registrar who was not a party.

Outcome

Application struck out for being time-barred and incompetent

Facts

The plaintiff purchased land from the defendant in 1987 and paid in full, but the land was not transferred to him and no written sale agreement was executed. In 1990 the defendant agreed to transfer the land; the transfer was registered in October 1990 and the original certificate of title was handed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff later discovered that the defendant had obtained a duplicate certificate of title and was planning to sell the land to a third party. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that he was the legal proprietor. He placed a caveat on the land on 16 July 1991. On 13 November 1991 he received statutory notice from the Registrar of Titles requiring him to obtain a court order within 60 days restraining the Registrar from effecting a transfer to a third party. The 60-day period expired on 13 January 1992. On that date the applicant filed this ex parte application seeking an order restraining the Registrar from registering any dealing in the property.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should dispense with service of notice to the opposite party and grant an ex parte temporary injunction restraining the Registrar of Titles from registering dealings in the disputed land.
  2. Whether the application was time-barred under section 149 of the Registration of Titles Act.
  3. Whether the application was properly directed against the Registrar of Titles rather than the defendant.

Orders

  • Application struck out.
  • Applicant at liberty to file a proper application if he so wishes.

Rules and key headnotes

Interim relief — Ex parte injunctions — Notice to opposite party — Dispensing with notice
The requirement to give notice of an application for injunction to the opposite party is mandatory, and the onus of satisfying the court that there is good cause for dispensing with notice lies on the applicant.
Interim relief — Ex parte injunctions — Delay by applicant
Where an applicant waits until the last day of a statutory period to file an application and then seeks to dispense with notice to the opposite party on grounds of urgency, the court will consider whether the applicant has advanced adequate reasons for the delay in making the application.
Registration of Titles — Caveats — Extension of caveat — Time limits under section 149
Where the Registrar of Titles has given a caveator statutory notice requiring a court order within 60 days under section 149 of the Registration of Titles Act, an application filed after expiry of the 60-day period is time-barred.
Interim relief — Injunctions — Proper parties
A temporary injunction to restrain dealings in disputed property should be directed against the defendant who is a party to the suit, not against the Registrar of Titles who is not a party, unless the Registrar is joined as a party to the proceedings.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Noor Mohamed Janmohamed v Kassamali Virji Madhani (1953) 20 EACA 8
  • Nsubuga and Another v Lutawe [1974] EA 48

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Buruhani Namudala v Stefano Kazibwe (Civil Suit No. 818 of 1991) [1992] UGHC 115 (22 January 1992)
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.