Wakilii

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

High Court · [1992] UGHC 10 · 1992 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by chamber summons for temporary injunction to restrain Registrar of Titles from registering dealings in disputed property pending suit disposal
Decision
Application struck out with liberty to file proper application

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 exparte temporary injunction struck out. Where an applicant seeks to restrain the Registrar of Titles from registering a dealing after the statutory 60-day period under Registration of Titles Act s.149 has expired, and the applicant provides no explanation for the delay in applying, the application is time-barred and incompetent. The temporary injunction should have been directed against the defendant party to the suit, not the Registrar.

Outcome

Application struck out with liberty to file proper application

Facts

The plaintiff bought land from the defendant in 1987 and paid the full purchase price. Transfer was registered in the land office on 11 October 1990 and the original certificate of title handed to the plaintiff, but title was never transferred into the plaintiff's name. The defendant obtained a duplicate certificate and planned to sell to a third party. The plaintiff filed suit on 23 December 1991 claiming he is the legal proprietor. He had placed a caveat on 16 July 1991. On 13 November 1991 the Registrar of Titles issued statutory notice requiring the plaintiff to obtain a court order within 60 days preventing registration of a transfer, failing which the caveat would lapse. On 13 January 1992, the last day of the 60-day period, the plaintiff applied exparte for an injunction against the Registrar of Titles to prevent registration of dealings pending suit disposal.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should dispense with notice to the opposite party in granting an exparte temporary injunction.
  2. Whether the applicant had established sufficient grounds to restrain the Registrar of Titles from registering dealings in the disputed property.

Orders

  • Application struck out as time-barred and incompetent.
  • Applicant given liberty to file a proper application.

Rules and key headnotes

Interim Injunctions — Exparte Applications — Requirement to Give Notice
Under Civil Procedure Rules Order 37 rule 3, the court must in all cases direct notice of an application for injunction to be given to the opposite party, except where the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay. The requirement to give notice is mandatory and the onus of satisfying the court that there is good cause for dispensing with it lies on the applicant.
Registration of Titles — Caveats — Statutory Notice Period — Effect of Delay
Where a caveator receives statutory notice under Registration of Titles Act s.149 requiring a court order within 60 days to prevent registration of a dealing, and the caveator waits until the last day to apply without explaining the delay, the application is time-barred and incompetent.
Interim Injunctions — Proper Respondent — Injunction Against Non-Party
A temporary injunction to preserve property pending suit disposal should be directed against a party to the suit, not against the Registrar of Titles who is not a party and who exercises statutory powers under Registration of Titles Act s.149.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Noor Mohamed Janmohamed v Kassamali Virji Madhani (1953) 20 EACA 8
  • Nsubuga and Another v Mutawe (1974) EA 487

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 10 (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.