Wakilii

Kainembabazi v Sebowa and Another (Miscellaneous Application 164 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 162 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for vesting order under Registration of Titles Act s.167
Decision
Application for vesting order refused

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 applicant failed to satisfy the statutory requirements under Registration of Titles Act s.167. The applicant was not in actual possession of the land as required by the statute, failed to demonstrate adequate efforts to trace the vendor, and did not explain why the vendor never signed transfer forms despite 26 years elapsing between the alleged purchase in 1994 and the deceased's death in 2020. Additionally, the vendor held only a 5-year leasehold interest which would have expired in 1999.

Outcome

Application for vesting order refused

Facts

The applicant, as administrator of the estate of the late Timothy Musherure, applied for a vesting order over land comprised in LRV 2243 Folio 14 Plot 23, Mpanga Close, Bugolobi. The applicant claimed the deceased purchased the land from the 1st Respondent in 1994 and paid the full purchase price, but the transfer was never executed. The deceased died in 2020. The applicant stated she was in possession of the duplicate certificate of title and that efforts to trace the 1st Respondent had been futile. The 2nd Respondent's affidavit showed the land remained registered in the 1st Respondent's name with no encumbrance. The applicant had previously applied to the Commissioner Land Registration for a vesting order but it was declined because she did not explain why the vendor never signed transfer forms. The vendor held only a 5-year leasehold interest at the time of the alleged 1994 sale.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should grant a vesting order in respect of land comprised in LRV 2243 Folio 11 Plot 23 at Mpanga Close, Bugolobi, Nakawa Division.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Vesting Orders — Requirements under Registration of Titles Act s.167
Before a vesting order can be issued under Registration of Titles Act s.167, the applicant must prove: (a) the land is registered under the Registration of Titles Act; (b) there was a sale and the purchaser paid the entire purchase price; (c) the purchaser or those claiming under him have taken actual possession of the land and the entry has been acquiesced in by the vendor or his representatives; and (d) the transfer has not been effected because the vendor is dead, residing out of jurisdiction, or cannot be found.
Vesting Orders — Actual Possession Requirement
Section 167 of the Registration of Titles Act requires that the applicant be in actual possession of the suit land and that such possession be acquiesced in by the vendor or his representatives. Mere possession of the duplicate certificate of title and a statement that entry into possession will not be difficult does not satisfy the statutory requirement of actual possession.
Vesting Orders — Burden of Proof on Efforts to Trace Vendor
An applicant seeking a vesting order on the ground that the vendor cannot be found must elaborate on the exact efforts taken to trace the vendor. It is insufficient to merely depone that efforts have been futile without providing particulars of those efforts.
Leasehold Interests — Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet
A transferor cannot give a better title to property than he or she possesses. Where a vendor holds only a leasehold interest for a fixed period, the vendor can only transfer that limited interest to the purchaser. A leasehold interest expires at the end of the fixed period unless renewed or extended.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (1)

  • Were Fred v Kaga Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 530 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kainembabazi_v_Sebowa_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_164_of_2021)_[2023]_UGHCLD_162_(30_June_2023)
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.