Wakilii

In the Matter of An Application for Vesting Orders for Land comprised in Mengo ,Kyandondo Block 195 plot 1099 by Namazzi (Originating Summons 3 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 102 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Originating summons application for vesting order under Registration of Titles Act s.167
Decision
Application for vesting order refused; vendor located and available

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 vesting order dismissed. The court held that the applicant failed to establish that the vendor could not be located, as required under Registration of Titles Act s.167. Court-ordered process server confirmed the vendor's telephone number was active and the vendor acknowledged knowing the applicant. The procedural requirement to first apply to the Commissioner Land Registration was also not properly satisfied.

Outcome

Application for vesting order refused; vendor located and available

Facts

The applicant claimed to have purchased land from the 1st respondent in 2012 for UGX 280,000,000, paying the full purchase price and taking possession. The vendor allegedly handed over the duplicate certificate of title and signed transfer forms, which the applicant misplaced. When the applicant sought to transfer the land into her name, she claimed the vendor could not be located despite efforts. The applicant filed an originating summons for a vesting order under Registration of Titles Act s.167. The 2nd respondent raised a preliminary objection that the proper procedure had not been followed. At the court's direction, the process server contacted the vendor's telephone number, and the vendor confirmed he was available, knew the applicant, and that his number was active.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was brought using the proper procedure under the Registration of Titles Act s.167.
  2. Whether the applicant disclosed grounds justifying the grant of a vesting order, specifically whether the vendor could not be found.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 2nd respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Vesting Orders — Procedural Requirements — Application to Commissioner Land Registration as Prerequisite
Before invoking the High Court's jurisdiction for a vesting order under Registration of Titles Act s.167, an applicant must first apply to the Commissioner Land Registration, who must have declined to exercise the power to grant a vesting order. The procedural directive of s.167 requires the Commissioner to be the first point of reference despite the High Court's unlimited original jurisdiction in land matters.
Vesting Orders — Conditions for Grant — Inability to Locate Vendor
A vesting order under Registration of Titles Act s.167 requires proof that the vendor is dead, residing outside the jurisdiction, or cannot be found. Where a court-directed inquiry confirms the vendor's telephone number is active and the vendor acknowledges availability, the condition that the vendor cannot be found is not satisfied, and a vesting order must be refused.
Vesting Orders — Proof of Possession — Insufficient Evidence
For a vesting order under Registration of Titles Act s.167, an applicant must prove actual possession of the land. Photographs showing scattered banana plants and a bushy plot, without evidence of the projects claimed to be conducted on the land, do not constitute sufficient proof of actual possession.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

  • Ronald Oine v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 90 of 2013)
  • Aida Najjemba v Ester Mpagi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2005)
  • Mutyaba Tom v James Kayimbye Sebinene Musajjalumbwa (Miscellaneous Cause No. 40 of 2018)
  • Maria Goretti Musimenta v Commissioner for Land Registration (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 62 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

In_the_Matter_of_An_Application_for_Vesting_Orders_for_Land_comprised_in_Mengo_,Kyandondo_Block_195_plot_1099_by_Namazzi_(Originating_Summons_3_of_2023)_[2024]_UGHCLD_102_(19_April
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.