Wakilii

Francis Rutagarama Bantariza vs Habre International Trading Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No 10 of 1997)

Court of Appeal · [1998] UGCA 15 · 1998 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court decision dismissing a suit for trespass to land
Decision
Appeal allowed; judgment entered for the appellant with an order that the respondent remove his illegal structures from the land

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 Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge misevaluated the evidence when he dismissed the appellant's suit for trespass. The evidence showed the respondent's lease had been granted under a minute referring to a different applicant and plot, that no ministerial consent had been obtained, and that the respondent's certificate of title had been cancelled for fraud on 5/12/88 — before the appellant obtained his valid title on 1/8/89. Under section 76 of the Registration of Titles Act, a cancelled certificate procured by fraud is void. The appellant's title therefore prevailed, and the respondent was ordered to remove his illegal structures from the land.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; judgment entered for the appellant with an order that the respondent remove his illegal structures from the land

Facts

The suit land, Kyadondo Block 244 Plot 4805 at Muyenga in Kampala, was once vested in the National Water and Sewerage Corporation, which disclaimed interest. The appellant applied, made the required payments on 9/8/89, and was issued a certificate of title on 31/12/91 for a five-year lease from 1/8/89. He later discovered the respondent had built structures on part of the land and sued for their removal and for damages for trespass. The respondent claimed ownership under a lease it said it obtained in 1985 for five years. Evidence showed the minute under which the respondent's lease was granted referred to a different applicant (M/s Mukalazi Technical Services) and a different plot, that no ministerial consent had been obtained, and that the respondent's certificate had been cancelled for fraud on 5/12/88. The respondent's lease would otherwise have expired on 1/2/90. The trial judge believed the respondent and dismissed the suit, prompting this appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred in his evaluation of the evidence in holding that the appellant failed to prove his claim on a balance of probabilities.
  2. Whether the appellant owned the suit land and whether the respondent's cancelled lease could defeat the appellant's title.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment and orders of the High Court set aside.
  • Judgment entered for the appellant.
  • The respondent to remove his illegal structures from the appellant's land forthwith.
  • Costs to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Registration of Titles — Cancellation of Title for Fraud — Effect Under Section 76 RTA
A certificate of title procured or made by fraud, once cancelled, is void as against all parties and privies to the fraud and thereafter ceases to have any legal effect.
Leases — Validity — Minute Referring to Different Applicant and Plot
Where the minute under which a lease was granted refers to a different applicant and a different plot, the resulting title is void ab initio and cannot be treated as a mere internal administrative irregularity.
Illegality — Duty of the Court
Once an illegality is brought to the notice of the court, it cannot be condoned regardless of how it was raised.
Appellate Re-evaluation — Findings Contrary to Unchallenged Evidence
An appellate court will disturb a trial judge's finding where it is made in contradiction of unchallenged evidence, such as a finding that no evidence was led on a point when clear testimony to that effect was in fact adduced.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (1)

  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga & Another [1982] HCB 11

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Francis Rutagarama Bantariza vs Habre International Trading Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No 10 of 1997) [1998] UGCA 15 (23 November 1998)
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.