Edhiruma v The Registered Trustees of Lohana (EA) Education Trust & 4 Others (Civil Suit 45 of 2019)

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 High Court held that the plaintiff was the lawful owner of the suit property having fully paid the purchase price and received vacant possession, signed transfer forms, and the duplicate certificate of title. The mortgages registered in 1967 and 1968 were declared extinguished and invalid, one by release and both by operation of the Limitation Act, as no action had been brought for over 36 years. The Registrar of Titles' cancellation of the plaintiff's registration was found ultra vires for failing to comply with statutory notice and hearing requirements under Land Act s.91.

Outcome

Plaintiff declared lawful owner of the suit property with orders directing transfer of title and removal of encumbrances; permanent injunction granted preventing defendants from claiming any interest in the suit land

Facts

In 2004 the plaintiff purchased land comprised in LRV 636 Folio 8, Plots 67 and 69, Main Street, Jinja from Moshin Kassam, the lawful attorney of the 4th defendant (the registered proprietor), for UGX 160,000,000. The plaintiff fully paid the purchase price and was given vacant possession. In 2009 he received a signed transfer form, consent from the lessor (Church of Uganda), and the duplicate certificate of title. He lodged these with the Registrar of Titles for transfer after paying stamp duty. The Registrar initially registered the plaintiff on 15 October 2009 but cancelled the entry alleging it was made in error due to two mortgages on the title: one registered on 4 December 1967 in favour of the 1st defendant and another on 4 June 1968 in favour of the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The plaintiff established that the second mortgage was released by the Minister of Finance on 19 January 2005 and that neither mortgage had been the subject of any action for over 36 years. The plaintiff remained in possession, demolished the original structure in 2017, and erected a multi-storey building. All defendants failed to appear and the suit proceeded ex parte.

Issues

1. Whether the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit land?
2. Whether the Mortgages reflected on the suit title are valid and subsisting?
3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

• Declaration that the Plaintiff is the equitable owner of the property comprised in LRV 636 Folio 23 Plot No. 67 and 69, Main Street, Jinja and is entitled to legal ownership of the same.
• Declaration that the mortgage/mortgage interest of the 1st Defendant registered on 4th December 1967 on the land is extinguished and invalid.
• Declaration that the mortgage/mortgage interest of the 2nd and 3rd Defendant registered on 4th June 1968 as a second mortgage on the land is extinguished and invalid.
• Order directing the 5th Defendant to cancel and or remove the mortgage of the 1st Defendant entered on 4th December 1967 vide Instrument No.171206 as an encumbrance.
• Order directing the 5th Defendant to cancel and or remove the mortgage of the 2nd and 3rd Defendant entered on 4th June 1968 vide Instrument No. 173128 as an encumbrance.
• Order directing the 5th Defendant to transfer the suit property comprised in LRV 636 Folio 8, Plot 67 and 69, Jinja to the names of the Plaintiff.
• Permanent injunction issued preventing the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants from claiming any interest in the suit land.
• General Damages of UGX 20,000,000 awarded to the Plaintiff.
• Interest on the General Damages at court rate from the time of Judgment till payment in full.
• Full costs of the suit from the time of filing till Judgment awarded to the Plaintiff.
• Consequential order for the rectification of the Certificate of Title comprised in LRV 636 Folio 8 Plots 67 and 69 Main Street Jinja and to reinstate the Plaintiff's names thereon as the lawful owner.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (23)

• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 26
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 237(3)(b)
• Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.59
• Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.64(1)
• Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.77
• Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.136
• Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.176
• Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.177
• Land Act Cap 227 s.91
• Land Act 1998 s.4
• Mortgage Act 2009 s.19
• Mortgage Act 2009 s.24
• Evidence Act s.21(e)(i)
• Evidence Act s.58
• Evidence Act s.101(1)
• Evidence Act s.102
• Evidence Act s.103
• Evidence Act s.133
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.27(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 9 rule 20(1)(a)
• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33
• Limitation Act Cap 80 s.18(1)
• Expropriated Properties Act Cap 87 s.15

Cases cited (17)

• Dr. Vincent Karuhanga t/a Friends Polyclinic v National Insurance Corporation & Uganda Revenue Authority (HCCS No. 617 of 2002)
• Takiya Kaswahili & Another v Kajungu Denis (CACA No. 85 of 2011)
• Miller v Minister of Pension [1947] All ER 373
• Sebuliba v Co-Operative Bank (1982) HCB 129
• Vincent Kawunde t/a Oscar Associates v Damiano Kato (HCT-00-CC-CS-0004-2007)
• Frazer v Walker [1967] AC 569
• Kaahwa Stephen & Another v Kalema Hannington (HC CA No. 07 of 2011)
• James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (HCCS No. 13 of 1993)
• Erukan Kuwe v Isaac Patrick Matovu & Another (HCCS No. 177 of 2003)
• 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 (SCCA No. 17 of 1992)
• Robert Cuossens v Attorney General (SCCA No. 8 of 1999)
• Ongom v Attorney General [1979] HCB 267
• Francis Butagira v Deborah Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1989)
• Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Company (1981) HCB 35
• Sutherland v Canada (Attorney General) 2008 BCCA 27

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.

• Masette & Another v Khainza (Civil Appeal 171 of 2022)

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