Jagwe v Bugingo (Civil Appeal No. 114 of 2016)

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 Court of Appeal, by majority, upheld the finding that the respondent was the lawful registered owner of the suit land, holding that a certificate of title cannot be impeached for informalities or non-payment of stamp duty under s.59 of the Registration of Titles Act, and that a person with no interest in the land cannot sustain an ejectment action for fraud. The Court divided on trespass and damages: the majority (Musoke and Mulyagonja JJA) set aside the combined UGX 3,337,000,000 award because the appellant was condemned to pay for trespass claims pleaded only against non-parties in a consolidated suit whose separate identity was wrongly disregarded. The appeal partly succeeded; the Court made no order as to costs.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed; declaration of respondent's ownership upheld but combined damages award of UGX 3,337,000,000 set aside by majority.

Facts

The suit land in Mubende District was registered as freehold in the respondent's name. The respondent claimed he had occupied the then-vacant, unregistered land from around 2000, carried out tree planting and farming, and in 2013 obtained a freehold grant from Mubende District Land Board and a certificate of title. The appellant, owner of adjacent Singo Block 426 Plot 43, disputed the title, alleging he was a customary tenant having purchased interests from occupants, and that the title was obtained fraudulently, illegally and without payment of stamp duty. Two suits were consolidated: the appellant's suit (No. 116 of 2014) to cancel the title, and the respondent's suit (No. 359 of 2014) against 26 persons (not including the appellant) for trespass. The trial court declared the respondent owner, found the appellant vicariously liable for trespass through his workers, and awarded UGX 2,837,000,000 special and UGX 500,000,000 general damages with interest.

Issues

1. Whether the trial Judge erred in finding the respondent to be the lawful owner of the suit land.
2. Whether the respondent's certificate of title could be impeached for fraud, non-payment of stamp duty, or improper conversion to freehold.
3. Whether the respondent's pleadings disclosed a cause of action against the appellant.
4. Whether the appellant was vicariously liable for acts of trespass committed by persons who were not parties to the suit against him.
5. Whether the trial Judge committed procedural errors in handling the consolidated suits and in declining to visit the locus in quo, occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
6. Whether the awards of special and general damages and interest were properly made.

Orders

• By majority (Musoke and Cheborion JJA; Mulyagonja JA dissenting), the trial Judge's declaration that the respondent is the lawful owner of the suit land is upheld.
• By majority (Musoke and Mulyagonja JJA; Cheborion JA dissenting), the combined award of UGX 3,337,000,000 as damages for trespass is set aside, the majority finding the appellant did not commit any acts of trespass.
• The Court being equally divided on costs, no order is made on the costs of appeal, and the trial Judge's order on costs is maintained.
• The Registrar is directed to furnish a copy of the judgment to the Uganda Revenue Authority for assessment and collection of any unpaid stamp duty.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (27)

• Registration of Titles Act Cap. 230 s.59
• Registration of Titles Act Cap. 230 s.176
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.237
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.240
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.241
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.133
• Land Act Cap. 227 s.3
• Land Act Cap. 227 s.5
• Land Act Cap. 227 s.6
• Land Act Cap. 227 s.9
• Land Act Cap. 227 s.10
• Land Act Cap. 227 s.11
• Land Act Cap. 227 s.12
• Land Act Cap. 227 s.13
• Land Act Cap. 227 s.28
• Land Regulations 2004 reg.10
• Land Regulations 2004 reg.12
• Stamp Duty Act 2014 s.29
• Stamp Duty Act 2014 s.32
• Stamp Duty Act 2014 s.33
• Stamp Duty Act 2014 s.52
• Stamp Duty Act 2014 s.61
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order XI r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order XI r.2
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 7 r.11
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 6 r.30
• Civil Procedure Act s.26(2)

Cases cited (42)

• Uganda Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1992)
• Daws v Daily Sketch & Sunday Graphic Ltd and Another and Darke and Others vs. Same [1960] 1 All ER 397
• Payne v British Time Recorder Co Ltd & Curtis Ltd ([1921] 2 KB at p 16)
• Makula International vs. Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11
• Mudiima Issa v Kayanja (Civil Suit No. 232 of 2009)
• Samuel Kizito Mubiru v Byensibye (Civil Suit No. 513 of 1982)
• Yowasi Kabiguruka v Samuel Byarufu (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2008)
• Yesero Waibi v Edirisa Luni Byandala (1982) HCB 28
• Kampala District Land Board v Babweyaka (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
• Kaberuka v NK Investments Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 80 of 2008)
• Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Demanico (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
• David Sejjaka Nalima v Rebecca Musoke (Civil Suit No. 486 of 1983)
• Frederick Zzabwe v Orient Bank (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
• Muwonge v Attorney General [1967] EA 17
• Fredrick James Kunju v Madhvani Group Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 688 of 2015)
• Kengrow Industries Ltd v Chandran (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2001)
• Kateregga and Anor v UEB [1995-1998] 1 EA 95
• Auto Garage v Motokov (No.3) [1971] EA 514
• Tororo Cement v Frokina International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
• Brinsmead v Harrison [1872] 2 LR 7
• Newcrest Mining Ltd v Michael Emery Thorton [2012] HCA 60
• Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
• Ecta (U) Ltd v Namirimu (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1994)
• Bank of Baroda (U) Ltd v Kamuganda [2006] 1 EA 11
• Milton Obote Foundation v Kennon Training Ltd (Civil Suit No. 25 of 1995)
• Kivamukuteesa Consumers v Ssebugwawo Nelson [1986] HCB 61
• Tinyefunza v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
• Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
• Attorney General vs. Oluoch [1972] EA 392
• Kapeka Coffee Works Ltd v NPART (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
• Begumisa v Tibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2000)
• David Wesley Tusingwire v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2016)
• De Souza v Uganda [1964] E.A 787
• Premchandra Shenoi v Maximov Oleg Petrovich (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2003)
• Sietco vs. Noble Builders (U) Ltd
• Patel V Sam & Another (1941) 17 EACA 8
• Flint V Lovell (1935) 1 KB 360
• Placid Weli v Hippo Tours (Civil Suit No. 939 of 1996)
• Stroms vs. Hutchinson (1905) AC 515
• Twesigura v Wheels of Africa (Civil Suit No. 485 of 1995)
• Musoke David vs. Departed Asian's Property Custodian Board [1990-1994] EA 279
• Uganda Breweries Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001)

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.

• Ntalo v Keezi and Others (Civil Suit 366 of 2017)

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