Wakilii

Kaddu 3 Others v The Commissioner Land Registration 9 Others National Agricultural Research Organization v Akright Projects Limited 8 Others [2024] UGHCLD 295

High Court · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated civil suits — first suit by estate administrator for declaration of fraudulent transfer and orders to cancel title; second suit by lessee for injunction and damages for unlawful eviction
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiffs in both consolidated suits. All fraudulent titles impeached and ordered cancelled. Defendants ordered evicted from suit land. NARO's lease confirmed valid. General damages awarded to NARO.

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 late Yafesi Walusimbi fraudulently acquired title to land comprised in Busiro Block 260 Plot 8, which belonged to the estate of the late Yofasi Sekaiba and was subject to a 99-year lease to the Governor of Uganda (whose successor is NARO). There was no evidence of any transfer from Sekaiba to Walusimbi — no sale agreement, no transfer instrument, and no witnesses to any transaction. The title showed Walusimbi as first registered proprietor rather than transferee. All subsequent transferees acquired no valid interest and were not bona fide purchasers. The court declared the original lease valid, cancelled all fraudulent titles, and awarded general damages to NARO for unlawful eviction.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiffs in both consolidated suits. All fraudulent titles impeached and ordered cancelled. Defendants ordered evicted from suit land. NARO's lease confirmed valid. General damages awarded to NARO.

Facts

The suit land comprised approximately 135.50 acres forming part of Busiro Block 260 Plot 8, originally registered in the names of Lukumbi Sekaiba in 1906. Upon his death, his son Yofasi Sekaiba inherited the land and was registered as proprietor in 1941. In 1951, Yofasi Sekaiba leased the land to the Governor of Uganda for 99 years; the lease was registered in 1952 and the lessee was the Agricultural Department (now NARO). In 1962, Yafesi Walusimbi was registered as proprietor of the same plot under a different title. No sale agreement, transfer instrument, or witness evidence existed to show how the land moved from Yofasi Sekaiba to Yafesi Walusimbi. Upon Walusimbi's death, his estate transferred the land to his heirs, who then sold portions to various defendants. In 2011, agents of the defendants evicted NARO from the land, destroying buildings and research materials. NARO had been in continuous possession under the lease. Court inspection revealed freshly demolished NARO buildings and evidence of recent destruction.

Issues

  1. Whether the 3rd to 7th defendants in Civil Suit No. 154 of 2009 fraudulently acquired the Certificate of Title for land comprised in Busiro Block 260 Plot 8 land at Senge in Wakiso district measuring approximately 135.50 acres.
  2. Whether the 3rd to 7th defendants fraudulently sold the suit land to the 8th and 9th defendants and whether the 8th and 9th defendants fraudulently acquired the suit land.
  3. Whether the 8th and 9th defendants fraudulently sold and the 10th defendant fraudulently acquired the suit land.
  4. Whether eviction of NARO from the suit land was unlawful.

Orders

  • Declaration that the suit land comprised in Busiro Block 260 Plot 8 Land at Senge in Wakiso district, measuring approximately 135.50 acres is part of the estate of the late Yofasi Sekaiba.
  • Declaration that the late Yafesi Walusimbi fraudulently transferred the suit land into his names and thus the same does not form part of his estate.
  • Declaration that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants in Civil Suit No. 154/2009 acquired no interest in the suit land as their predecessor in title acquired the same fraudulently.
  • Declaration that the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants fraudulently sold and the 8th, 9th and 10th defendants fraudulently purchased the suit land.
  • Order directing the 1st defendant to cancel and set aside all entries changing ownership and subdivision made on the suit land and reinstating the same into the names of Yofasi Sekaiba or the legal representative of his estate.
  • Permanent injunction restraining specified defendants from dealing in the suit land by sale, subdivision, transfer or otherwise.
  • Order to evict the 8th, 9th and 10th defendants in Civil Suit No. 154/2009 and their agents/successors/assignees from the suit land.
  • Counterclaims of the 2nd, 3rd and 9th defendants in Civil Suit No. 211/2012 dismissed with costs.
  • Permanent injunction restraining defendants from claiming, selling, occupying or otherwise dealing with the suit land for the remaining lease period of NARO's lease.
  • Order for cancellation of all subsequent titles and sale agreements affecting NARO's lease.
  • NARO awarded general damages of UGX 500,000,000 payable jointly and severally by specified defendants with interest at court rate from judgment date till full payment.
  • Costs of Civil Suit No. 154/2009 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Costs of Civil Suit No. 211/2012 awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Land Registration — Fraud — Impeachment of Title — Burden of Proof
Where a registered proprietor claims title but there exists no sale agreement, no transfer instrument, and no witness testimony evidencing any transaction by which the land was transferred from the previous registered owner, and the title shows the current proprietor as first registered proprietor rather than transferee, the only reasonable inference is that registration was obtained through fraud, and the title is liable to be impeached.
Land Registration — Double Titling — Fraud
The existence of more than one title on the same piece of land is an incident of fraud, usually committed within the land registry acting on forged documents or through collusion with unscrupulous registry officials.
Land Registration — Fraud — Transferees — Constructive Notice
A person becomes privy to a fraudulent transaction either by being an active participant in its perpetration by action or omission, or when having acquired knowledge of its perpetration by others or third parties, knowingly and wilfully seeks to take benefit from it. Fraud by a predecessor in title affects subsequent transferees unless they are bona fide purchasers for value without notice.
Leasehold — Protection of Lessee — Unlawful Eviction
A registered lease creates a valid interest in land enforceable against subsequent purported owners of the mailo interest. Where a lessee in actual continuous possession is evicted by persons claiming to be registered proprietors of the underlying mailo land, but whose title was fraudulently obtained, the eviction is unlawful and the lessee is entitled to restoration of possession and damages.
Bona Fide Purchaser — Due Diligence — Duty to Investigate Occupation
Lands are not vegetables which are bought from unknown sellers. When purchasing land, buyers must investigate the land, investigate the seller, establish the land's status, identify persons in occupation, and identify the plot number. A buyer who purchases land knowing or ought to have known that it is occupied by someone other than the vendor is not a bona fide purchaser and is bound by any equities that parties in occupation may have.
Estate Property — Fraudulent Transfer by Non-Owner — Effect on Estate
Where a person fraudulently registers land in his own name which in fact belongs to another's estate, the land does not form part of the fraudster's estate upon his death, and his heirs acquire no valid interest to transmit to subsequent transferees.
General Damages — Assessment — Destruction of Property and Unlawful Eviction
General damages are losses which flow naturally from the defendant's act and are awarded as compensation for wrong suffered. The essence of damages is compensatory, neither to punish the defendant nor confer a windfall on the plaintiff. Where a lessee is unlawfully evicted and its buildings, seedlings, and growing plants are destroyed, general damages are awardable for the loss, inconvenience, and embarrassment suffered.

Cases cited (9)

  • St. Mark Educational Centre Limited v Makerere University (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1997)
  • Kampala Bottlers Limited v Damanico (U) Limited (Court of Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Agandru v Etoma (Civil Suit No. 0007 of 2011)
  • David Sekajja Nalima v Rebecca Musoke (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 121 of 1985)
  • Fam International Limited and Ahmad Farah v Mohamed El Faith [1994] KALR 307
  • Sir John Bageire v Ausi Matovu (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 07 of 1996)
  • Mugabi John v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 133 of 2002)
  • W.M Kyambadde v MPIGI District Administration [1984] HCB
  • Prince Kalemera and Another v Kabaka of Buganda and 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 535 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kaddu 3 Others v The Commissioner Land Registration 9 Others National Agricultural Research Organization v Akright Projects Limited 8 Others 2024 UGHCLD 295 (28 November 2024)
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.