Wakilii

Jennifer Biriibwamugumu and Others v Adonia Kahuta Biriibwamugumu and Others (Civil Suit 19 of 2019)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 92 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaration of ownership, cancellation of title, and damages arising from alleged fraudulent land transactions
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiffs; certificates of title of 4th and 5th defendants cancelled and land ordered to be registered in the names of the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs

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 held that the transaction between the 1st and 2nd defendants was unlawful because they purported to cancel previous purchase agreements without involving the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs who were the original purchasers. The 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants were not bonafide purchasers for value without notice because they failed to exercise due diligence by inquiring from persons in possession and ignored signposts indicating the land was not for sale. The defendants committed fraud through acts of dishonesty including concealing identities in agreements and misrepresenting transactions. The 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs were declared rightful owners, and the court ordered cancellation of the 4th and 5th defendants' certificates of title and substitution with the plaintiffs' names.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiffs; certificates of title of 4th and 5th defendants cancelled and land ordered to be registered in the names of the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs

Facts

In 2001, the 1st plaintiff sent money from abroad to her husband (1st defendant) to purchase land for their sons (2nd and 3rd plaintiffs). The family initially purchased 10 acres which were registered in the sons' names. Subsequently, they purchased an additional 4 acres in phases between 2002 and 2005 from various sellers including the 2nd defendant, with agreements executed in the names of the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs. The land was fenced and used as a family farm. In 2011, the 1st and 2nd defendants executed an agreement purporting to sell 3 acres to the 1st defendant and stating that earlier kibanja agreements had been cancelled. The 1st defendant then sold 2 acres to the 3rd defendant, who subsequently sold to the 4th and 5th defendants. Titles were transferred to the 4th and 5th defendants, but they were unable to take physical possession as the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs remained in occupation. The plaintiffs discovered the fraudulent transactions in 2014 when the defendants attempted to take possession and destroy fencing.

Issues

  1. Whether the transaction between the 1st and 2nd defendants was lawful.
  2. Whether the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants are bonafide purchasers for value without notice.
  3. Whether the defendants committed any fraud in the transactions relating to the suit land.
  4. Whether the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs are rightful owners of the suit land.
  5. Whether the 4th and 5th defendants are trespassers on the suit land.
  6. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • It is declared that the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs are the rightful owners of land comprised in Busiro Block 314 plots 4265 and 4266 at Buloba Bukasa Bukulu village, Wakiso District.
  • The Registrar of Titles is directed to cancel the names of the 4th defendant (Kakande Matthew) from the certificate of title to land comprised in Busiro Block 314 plot 4265 and register the same in the names of the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs (Dr. Paul Biriibwa Natureeba and Dr. Peter Biriibwa Kansiime) as proprietors.
  • The Registrar of Titles is directed to cancel the names of the 5th defendant (Kasamba Charles) from the certificate of title to land comprised in Busiro Block 314 plot 4266 and register the same in the names of the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs (Dr. Paul Biriibwa Natureeba and Dr. Peter Biriibwa Kansiime) as proprietors.
  • The 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants shall jointly pay a sum of UGX 20,000,000 as general damages.
  • The 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants shall pay interest on the general damages at court rate from date of judgment till payment in full.
  • The 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants shall pay costs of the case.

Rules and key headnotes

Land Transactions — Cancellation of Prior Agreements — Requirement for Participation of All Parties
It is unlawful for parties to purport to cancel previous land purchase agreements without involving or consulting all parties to those agreements, particularly the purchasers who are direct beneficiaries.
Bonafide Purchaser for Value — Due Diligence Requirements — Duty to Inquire from Persons in Possession
A purchaser claiming to be a bonafide purchaser for value without notice must exercise due diligence by making reasonable inquiries from neighbours, local council members, and persons in actual possession of the land. Conducting a search in the land registry alone is insufficient. Failure to make such inquiries negates the exception of being a bonafide purchaser and imputes fraud.
Bonafide Purchaser — Constructive Notice — Signposts and Physical Possession
Where signposts are erected on land indicating that it is not for sale, and where persons are in actual physical possession and utilising the land, a prospective purchaser who ignores such indicators cannot claim to be a bonafide purchaser for value without notice. Such circumstances impose constructive notice of third party interests.
Fraud — Acts of Dishonesty — Concealment of Identity in Land Transactions
Fraud is established where a purchaser deliberately conceals their identity in a land transaction agreement by using different names, and where parties execute agreements that misrepresent the true nature of the transaction and the persons involved. Such acts of dishonesty are intended to benefit the parties and make fraudulent transactions appear genuine.
Equitable Interest — Purchasers in Possession — Rights Prior to Registration
Purchasers who have executed valid purchase agreements and taken actual possession of land by utilising it acquire equitable interest in the land even though they have not effected transfer of the title into their names.
Cancellation of Title — Registration Obtained Through Fraud — Powers of High Court
Under sections 160 and 161 of the Registration of Titles Act, the High Court has power to order cancellation of a certificate of title where registration was obtained through fraud, and to direct the Registrar of Titles to substitute the names of the rightful owners on the register.
Locus Standi — Right to Appear — Person Who Funded Purchase and Was in Possession
A person has locus standi to bring an action in trespass and fraud where they provided the funds used to purchase land and were in lawful possession of the land, even if the purchase agreements were executed in the names of other family members. Such a person has sufficient interest in the matter as one whose rights in the land were violated.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (14)

  • Lwanga Israel v Leonard Mubiru and 3 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2022)
  • David Sejjaka Nalima v Rebecca Musoke (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1985)
  • Bank of Credit & Commercial International S.A (In Liquidation v. Ali [2001] 1 ALLER
  • Bank of Uganda and Another v Kaweesi Sulaiman (Miscellaneous Application No. 1047 of 2022)
  • Dima Dominic Poro v Inyani and Another (Civil Appeal No. 0017 of 2016)
  • Namayega v Etot and 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 939 of 2019)
  • Njau and others vs. City Council of Nairobi (1976-1985) EA 397 at 407
  • Milton Obote Foundation Ltd v Uganda People's Congress (Miscellaneous Application No. 121 of 2019)
  • Amrattal Purshottan and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 289 of 2010)
  • Rogers Kalyegira Eulogius v Irene Rukundo Potts (High Court Civil Suit No. 181 of 2019)
  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank and 5 Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Domanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Justine E.M. Lutaaya v Sterling Civil Engineering (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Onega Obel and Another v The Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 006 of 2002)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jennifer_Biriibwamugumu_and_Others_v_Adonia_Kahuta_Biriibwamugumu_and_Others_(Civil_Suit_19_of_2019)_[2025]_UGHCLD_92_(19_June_2025)
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.