Wakilii

Kabira Aisha v Nagujja Sylivia Lutta (Miscellaneous Application No 362 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 48 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of orders made in Miscellaneous Cause No. 227 of 2023 condemning the Applicant (Principal Registrar of Titles) to pay costs
Decision
Orders condemning the Applicant to costs in the underlying cause set aside

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 High Court granted the review application, finding that the trial court in the underlying cause may have erred in law by holding the Applicant (Principal Registrar of Titles) personally liable for costs without a specific finding that she acted with malicious or dishonest intent. The court held that statutory immunity under s.159 of the Registration of Titles Act and Article 173 of the Constitution protects public officers acting in good faith, and that a finding of illegality is not synonymous with bad faith. The orders condemning the Applicant to costs were set aside.

Outcome

Orders condemning the Applicant to costs in the underlying cause set aside

Facts

The Applicant, Principal Registrar of Titles, was sued alongside the Commissioner for Land Registration in Miscellaneous Cause No. 227 of 2023 for allegedly unlawfully cancelling the Respondent's name from a certificate of title while a suit concerning ownership of the same land was pending before Masaka High Court. The trial court found in favour of the Respondent and condemned both the Applicant and the Commissioner to pay costs. The Applicant did not file an affidavit in reply in the main cause and did not pursue an appeal, but instead brought this review application on grounds that the orders were made under an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Applicant contended that she was wrongly sued as an agent alongside her disclosed principal, and that she enjoyed statutory immunity from personal suit for acts done in good faith in her official capacity.

Issues

  1. Whether the Affidavit in Reply by the Respondent was filed out of time and without leave of court.
  2. Whether the Affidavit in Reply was competent, having regard to compliance with sections 5 and 6 of the Oaths Act.
  3. Whether there are sufficient grounds that warrant grant of the Review Application.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Orders made against the Applicant in Miscellaneous Cause No. 227 of 2023 are hereby set aside.
  • The Applicant is awarded the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Review — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
Review is permitted on three grounds: discovery of new and important matter or evidence not previously available; mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or any other sufficient reason. The scope of review is narrow and is not an appeal or a mechanism to re-litigate the case. The error must be self-evident and not one that requires a long-drawn process of reasoning.
Affidavits — Filing Out of Time — Court's Discretion to Extend Time
Under Order 12 rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a reply to an application must be filed within 15 days from the date of service. Failure to file within the prescribed time requires the party to seek leave of court. However, the court has discretion under s.98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules to extend time for doing any act, even after the deadline has passed, where good reason is shown and no substantial prejudice is demonstrated that cannot be compensated by costs.
Affidavits — Commissioning — Presumption of Regularity
Where an affidavit bears the signature and stamp of a duly appointed Commissioner for Oaths, the court presumes it was properly sworn unless there is clear and cogent evidence to the contrary. The burden of proving that the oath was never administered lies on the party challenging the affidavit. The law does not require the deponent to know or recall the Commissioner's office address, and the Commissioner is permitted to administer an oath anywhere.
Public Officers — Immunity from Suit — Good Faith Requirement
Section 159 of the Registration of Titles Act and Article 173 of the Constitution protect public officers from personal suits for acts done in good faith in the exercise of their official duties. For a suit against a public officer to be tenable, the plaintiff must plead and prove absence of good faith, that is, malice, fraud, or bad faith. A finding that an official acted illegally or made a legal error is not synonymous with a finding of bad faith. Bad faith implies dishonesty, malice, or an improper motive.
Agency — Liability of Agent and Disclosed Principal — Personal Liability for Tortious Acts
The general rule is that a person who acts as an agent for a disclosed principal cannot be held personally liable for acts done within the scope of their authority. However, a well-established exception exists where the agent commits a tort in their own right. If an agent acts fraudulently, maliciously, or beyond the scope of their authority, they can be held personally liable. The principal's liability in such cases is vicarious, meaning it is derivative of the agent's primary liability.

Legislation cited (24)

Cases cited (27)

  • Re Nakivubo Chemist (U) Ltd [1979] HCB 12
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • Patrick Senyondwa and Rose Nakito v Lucy Nakito (Miscellaneous Application No. 1103 of 2018)
  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Asuman Mugenyi v M. Buwule (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2016)
  • Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1995)
  • Kiiza Besigye v Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and Another (Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Kakooza John Baptist v Electoral Commission and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2007)
  • Abala David v Acayo Juliet and Another (Election Petition No. 4 of 2021)
  • Shanti v Hindocha [1973] EA 207
  • Godfrey Magezi and Another v Sudhir Ruparelia (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 10 of 2002)
  • The Executrix of the Estate of Christine Mary N Tebaijuka and Another v Noel Grace Shalita (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 8 of 1999)
  • Dr. Bakame Rwabikana v Attorney General of Uganda (Miscellaneous Cause No. 116 of 2022)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA 22
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol [1999] UGSC 7
  • Kakooza John v Electoral Commission and Another (Supreme Court Election Petition No. 11 of 2007)
  • Sam Kutesa and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 46 of 2011)
  • Charles Harry Twagira v Attorney General and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2007)
  • Totaram v Mistry Waryam Singh (Court of Appeal No. 15 of 1933)
  • Friendship Container Manufacture Ltd v Mitchell Cotts (K) Ltd [2001] 2 EA 338
  • Obuntu Consulting Ltd v Plan Build Technical Services Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 173 of 2014)
  • Rajendra Singh Vs Lt. Governor Andaman & Nicobar Islands (AIR) 2006 S.C 75
  • Kiska v De Angelis [1969] EA
  • Bandonda Nicholas v Captain Investments and Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 493 of 2018)
  • Fredrick J.K Zaabwe v Orient Bank and 5 Others [2006] UGSC 21
  • H/W Aggrey Bwire v Attorney General and Judicial Service Commission (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2010)
  • Attorney General v Gladys Nakibuule Kiseka (Court of Appeal No. 2 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabira Aisha v Nagujja Sylivia Lutta (Miscellaneous Application No 362 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 48 (2 March 2026)
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.