Wakilii

Dezideriyo Ssenyonjo and Another v Kasibante Joseph (Miscellaneous Cause No. 157 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 56 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for removal of caveat from registered land title
Decision
Application dismissed for failure to prove existence of registered caveat

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 removal of caveat dismissed. The applicants failed to discharge the burden of proving that a caveat existed on the certificate of title. The certificate of title showed the first applicant as registered proprietor with a blank incumbrancers page. Relying solely on an application for caveat without evidence of actual registration was insufficient to establish the existence of a registered caveat requiring removal.

Outcome

Application dismissed for failure to prove existence of registered caveat

Facts

The first applicant was the registered proprietor and administrator of land comprised in Block 8, Plot 68 at Buwasa-Busiro, Wakiso District. He sold the land to the second applicant and signed transfer forms in her favour. The applicants alleged that the respondent had lodged a caveat on the land in 2015 which prevented registration of the transfer. They claimed the caveat had remained for eight years without the respondent taking further action. The second applicant was in physical possession of the land. The respondent did not file an affidavit in reply or appear. The certificate of title produced showed the first applicant as registered proprietor with a blank incumbrancers page showing no registered caveat.

Issues

  1. Whether the caveat lodged by the respondent on the suit land can be vacated?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Caveats — Requirements for Lodging — Caveatable Interest
For one to lodge a caveat, he or she ought to have a legal or equitable interest in the land or any other caveatable interest that the caveat seeks to protect, otherwise the caveat would be invalid.
Land & Property — Caveats — Purpose and Duration — Temporary Protection
The primary objective of a caveat is to give the caveator temporary protection. It is not the intention of the law that the caveator should relax and sit back for eternity without taking actions and steps to handle the controversy so as to determine the rights of the parties affected by the existence of the caveat.
Land & Property — Caveats — Removal — Persons Entitled to Apply
The procedure for removal of a caveat by an order of court is available not only to the registered proprietor but also any person aggrieved by the existence of the caveat, including a purchaser to whom the registered proprietor has contracted to sell the land but the sale has not yet been completed by a proper instrument of transfer duly registered.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Party Asserting Affirmative
A fact is said to be proved when the court is satisfied as to its truth. The general rule is that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue or question in dispute.
Land & Property — Registered Land — Proof of Encumbrances — Certificate of Title
Where land is registered land, a caveat ought to be registered on the certificate of title with an instrument number, the date when it was registered, and signed off by the registrar of titles. An application for a caveat without evidence of actual registration on the certificate of title is not sufficient evidence to establish that a caveat is registered on the land.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Samwiri Massa v Rose Achen (1978 HCB 297)
  • Sentongo Produce and Coffee Farmers Limited and Another v Rose Nakafuma Muyisa (HCMC No. 690 of 1999)
  • Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (SCCA No. 28 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dezideriyo_Ssenyonjo_and_Another_v_Kasibante_Joseph_(Miscellaneous_Cause_No._157_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_56_(9_May_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.