Wakilii

Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited v Alikanjero and Others v Kagga and Others (Civil Suit No. 0171 of 2019)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 273 · 2025 Counterclaim Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for vacating caveats and declaration of mortgagee rights, with counterclaim alleging fraud in land transfer and mortgage registration
Decision
Counterclaim allowed; mortgage cancelled; counterclaimants reinstated as registered proprietors; plaintiff's suit dismissed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

The court held that the 1st counter-defendant fraudulently acquired the suit land through a transfer procured without the knowledge or consent of the registered proprietors, and that the plaintiff bank failed to conduct adequate due diligence before registering the mortgage. The court found the plaintiff was not a bona fide mortgagee, ordered cancellation of the mortgage, and reinstated the counterclaimants as rightful owners.

Outcome

Counterclaim allowed; mortgage cancelled; counterclaimants reinstated as registered proprietors; plaintiff's suit dismissed

Facts

In 2012, Aloysius Kagga was registered as proprietor of land originally owned by the 1st defendant and his three daughters since 1993. Kagga claimed to have purchased the land from Isaac Kabogoza (the 1st defendant's son), who allegedly had authority to sell on behalf of all registered proprietors. Kagga then mortgaged the land to Centenary Bank as security for a UGX 200,000,000 loan. When Kagga defaulted, the bank commenced foreclosure, but the 1st defendant lodged caveats. The counterclaimants alleged that Isaac Kabogoza stole the duplicate certificate of title and fraudulently transferred it to Kagga. Evidence showed that the transfer form contained five names instead of four registered proprietors, included photographs of three males and two females (instead of one male and three females), and listed Aloysius Kabogoza who was not a registered proprietor. The counterclaimants denied signing any transfer documents or consenting to the sale. The land remained in possession of the 1st defendant's family throughout.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st counter-defendant has a valid interest in the suit land.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is a bona fide mortgagee.
  3. Whether the plaintiff conducted the requisite due diligence before transacting with Mr. Kagga Aloysius and creating a mortgage over the suit land.
  4. Whether the plaintiff is a legally registered mortgagee.
  5. Whether the two caveats lodged by the defendants should be vacated by this court.
  6. What remedies are available to parties?

Orders

  • The counterclaimants are the rightful owners of the suit land comprised in Block 244, plot 3001, at Kisugu-Muyenga.
  • The transfer and registration of the suit land in the names of the 1st counter-defendant, Aloysius Kagga, was procured through fraud.
  • The registration of the mortgage by the 3rd counter-defendant on the suit land was unlawful and/or illegal.
  • An order of cancellation of the mortgage on the suit property.
  • An order that the Plaintiff/3rd counter-defendant hands over to the counterclaimants the duplicate title of the suit land.
  • A permanent injunction restraining the counter-defendants from interfering with the suit property.
  • An order for the re-instatement of the names of the counterclaimants as proprietors on the suit property.
  • The counter-defendants pay the counterclaimants UGX 10,000,000 in general damages.
  • The counter-defendants pay the counterclaimants the costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Fraud in Land Transactions — Duty of Purchaser to Verify Vendor's Authority
A prospective purchaser of registered land has a duty to establish whether the vendor has a right to sell the land in question and to ascertain the existence and identity of the sellers and whether the instrument before him is genuine, in order to avoid dealing with fictitious persons and impostors.
Land & Property — Fraud in Land Transactions — Constructive Notice
A purchaser is under constructive notice where the person acquired knowledge of circumstances which would put an honest and reasonable man on inquiry and yet he did not undertake the necessary inquiries. Where a purchaser's suspicions are aroused but he abstains from making inquiries for fear of learning the truth, fraud may be properly ascribed to him.
Land & Property — Fraud in Land Transactions — Red Flags Requiring Investigation
Where a land transaction involves multiple anomalies including purchase from a non-registered owner claiming authority, consent forms signed by persons the purchaser never met, names on transfer forms not matching registered proprietors, and discrepancies between the number and gender of transferees and their photographs, these red flags should alert the purchaser to issues requiring further investigation, and failure to investigate renders the purchaser complicit in fraud.
Banking & Finance — Mortgages — Due Diligence by Mortgagee
Carrying out a search at the Lands Registry is not sufficient due diligence before transacting in property. Due diligence requires that a person who wishes to transact in land should consult occupants and neighbors of the land about the true owner of the property before concluding the transaction.
Banking & Finance — Mortgages — Bona Fide Mortgagee Status
A mortgagee who does not carry out due diligence before registering a mortgage is not a bona fide mortgagee and such a registration is fraudulent. A bank that relies on a search conducted by the mortgagor rather than conducting an independent search, and fails to investigate the presence of structures and occupants on the land, has not conducted adequate due diligence.
Land & Property — Registration of Titles Act — Cancellation of Fraudulent Instruments
Under section 161 of the Registration of Titles Act, upon the recovery of any land by any proceeding from the person registered as proprietor thereof, the High Court may direct the Registrar to cancel any certificate of title or instrument procured by fraud. Under section 76, any certificate of title, entry, removal of encumbrance or cancellation in the register book procured or made by fraud shall be void against all parties or privies to the fraud.
Contract Law — Damages — Nominal Damages
Nominal damages are awarded for the infraction of a legal right where the extent of the loss is not shown. Where a party claiming general damages has not pleaded or proved the damages incurred, the court may award nominal damages to compensate for inconvenience suffered.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (15)

  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Kampala Bottlers v Damanico (U) Limited (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Dr. Joseph Kabuubi & Another v Wilson Kashaya & 4 Others (Civil Suit No. 0385 of 2020)
  • Sir John Bagaire v Ernest Matovu (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1996)
  • David Sejjaaka v Rebecca Musoke (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1985)
  • Assets Co. Ltd. v Mere Roihi & Others (1905) A.C. 176
  • Mary Buyondo v Equity Bank, Nanteza Mariani and Finance Trust Bank (Civil Suit No. 2890 of 2016)
  • Konde Matthias Zimula v Byarugaba Moses (Land Division Civil Suit No. 66 of 2007)
  • Adonia Tumusiime & 318 Others v Bushenyi District Local Government & Another (HCCS No. 32 of 2012)
  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (HCCS No. 13 of 1993)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Charles Acire v Myaana Engola (HCCS No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd. v Umar Salim (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Thunderbolt Technical Services Ltd v Apedu Joseph & Another (HCCS No. 340 of 2009)
  • Luzinda Marion Babirye v Ssekamatte & Others (Civil Suit No. 366 of 2017)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited v Alikanjero and Others v Kagga and Others (Civil Suit No. 0171 of 2019) [2025] UGCommC 273 (5 August 2025)
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.