Wakilii

Edward Kabugo Sentongo v Bank of Baroda (U) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 166 of 2002)

High Court · [2009] UGCOMMC 41 · 2009 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objections to suit by 2nd and 3rd defendants challenging their capacity to be sued and disclosure of cause of action
Decision
Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to full hearing on the merits

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

The Registrar of Titles has legal capacity to be sued and was rightly sued in this case. The statutory protection under s.175 of the Registration of Titles Act does not apply where the Registrar or officers act malafidely or fraudulently. While s.182 provides a specific procedure for challenging the Registrar's refusal to perform duties, it is permissive, not mandatory. Where allegations of bad faith and fraud are pleaded, a plaintiff may proceed by plaint rather than originating summons. The plaint disclosed a cause of action against the 2nd and 3rd defendants. Both preliminary objections dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to full hearing on the merits

Facts

The plaintiff Edward Kabugo Sentongo filed suit in 2002 against Bank of Baroda, Robert Opio (a registrar of titles), and the Registrar of Titles, claiming he was the proprietor of certain land. He alleged that the 2nd defendant concealed documents and misinformed him when he sought to lodge a caveat, and that a caveat was improperly removed and a mortgage unlawfully registered on his certificate of title. He claimed bad faith and fraud on the part of the 2nd and 3rd defendants. When the case came up for scheduling conference in February 2009, counsel for the 2nd and 3rd defendants raised two preliminary objections: first, that the Registrar of Titles was wrongly sued as a party, and second, that no cause of action was disclosed against the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The defendants argued that proceedings should have been brought under s.182 of the Registration of Titles Act and that any claim for damages should have been brought against the Attorney General under s.185.

Issues

  1. Whether the Registrar of Titles is wrongly sued as a party.
  2. Whether there is a cause of action disclosed against the 2nd defendant (Robert Opio) and the 3rd defendant (Registrar of Titles).
  3. Whether proceedings against the Registrar of Titles should be brought only under s.182 of the Registration of Titles Act by originating summons.
  4. Whether the Registrar of Titles has legal capacity to be sued in his or her official capacity.

Orders

  • The preliminary objections raised are rejected and dismissed with costs.
  • The suit shall proceed on merit.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Registrar of Titles — Legal Capacity to be Sued
The Registrar of Titles has legal capacity to sue and be sued in his or her official capacity. The Registrar must own his or her decisions and actions and have the capacity to defend them in court. By necessary implication, he or she who is empowered to sue is also liable to be sued.
Administrative Law — Registrar of Titles — Statutory Protection and Exceptions
Section 175 of the Registration of Titles Act, which protects the Registrar and persons acting under his or her authority from liability, is not an absolute bar to suits. The protection is limited to acts or omissions done bonafide. Where the Registrar or officers under him act malafidely or fraudulently, they do not enjoy the protection of s.175 and may be sued.
Civil Procedure — Registration of Titles Act — Section 182 Procedure
Section 182 of the Registration of Titles Act is permissive, not mandatory. It cannot be construed as divesting an aggrieved party from proceeding otherwise than under that section. While s.182 provides for proceedings by originating summons where a registrar refuses to perform specified duties, it does not preclude a party from commencing an ordinary suit by plaint where the claim goes beyond the scope of s.182.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Disclosure on Pleadings
A cause of action is disclosed if the plaint shows that the plaintiff enjoyed a right, that the right has been violated, and that the defendant is liable. Where pleadings allege that the Registrar of Titles or officers under him acted malafidely and fraudulently in the exercise of their powers, resulting in loss and damage to the plaintiff, a cause of action is disclosed.
Administrative Law — Proceedings Against Government Officers — Choice of Procedure
Where a plaintiff alleges bad faith and fraud against the Registrar of Titles and claims damages for the market value of property and other remedies, the procedure of commencing suit by plaint rather than originating summons under s.182 of the Registration of Titles Act is appropriate. The nature and scope of the relief claimed and the allegations made determine the appropriate procedure.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (10)

  • Charles Harry Twagira v Attorney General (CACA No. 61 of 2002)
  • Sanyu Lwanga Musoke v Yakobo Mayanja Ntate (SCCA No. 59 of 1995)
  • IGG v Kikonda Butema Farm Ltd (Constitutional Application No. 13 of 2006)
  • Commissioner General URA v Meera Investments Ltd (SCCA No. 22 of 2007)
  • Andrea Lwanga v Registrar of Titles (1980) HCB 24
  • Oliva Amelia Kawalya Kagwa v Registrar of Titles (1974) HCT 239
  • Kawalya Kagwa v Registrar of Titles (1974) EA 481
  • Elia Kitiza v Registrar of Titles (1978) HCB 39
  • Uganda Blanket Manufactures Ltd v Chief Registrar of Titles (HC Misc. App. No. 55 of 1993)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov (No. 3) (1971) EA 514

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Edward Kabugo Sentongo v Bank of Baroda (U) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 166 of 2002) [2009] UGCommC 41 (15 June 2009)
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.