Wakilii

Kakusa Investments And Others v Registrar Of Titles (Civil Suit No. 385 of 1994)

High Court · [1994] UGHC 150 · 1994 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application calling upon the Registrar of Titles to substantiate and uphold grounds for decision to cancel applicants' registered titles, with parallel civil suit pending
Decision
Registrar of Titles restrained from cancelling applicants' titles pending substantiation of grounds before High Court and final disposal of related civil suit

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

Held that where the Registrar of Titles has already communicated clear written grounds for his decision to cancel titles, no formal application requesting him to restate those reasons is required before the aggrieved party may summon him to substantiate and uphold his grounds before the High Court under s.190 of the Registration of Titles Act. The Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding matters that were already pending before a court of competent jurisdiction.

Outcome

Registrar of Titles restrained from cancelling applicants' titles pending substantiation of grounds before High Court and final disposal of related civil suit

Facts

The applicants were registered proprietors of two properties comprised in Leasehold Register Volume 221 Folio 7 Plot 14 Nakasero Street and Leasehold Register Volume 22 Folio 9 Plot 29 Juwum Street. A civil suit (No. 385 of 1994) was pending in the High Court in which the plaintiff, Mathiabai Kherji, sued Kampa City Council and the applicants seeking a declaration that the properties rightfully belonged to him and that the applicants' titles were illegal and void. Despite the pending suit, the Registrar of Titles sent a notice dated 25 October 1994 to the applicants stating that he would proceed to cancel their titles within seven days unless they showed cause why he should not do so. The applicants brought this application to restrain the Registrar and to require him to substantiate his grounds for the proposed cancellation before the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants were required to make a formal application to the Registrar to repeat in writing the grounds for his decision to cancel their titles before seeking High Court intervention.
  2. Whether the Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding matters pending before a court of competent jurisdiction.
  3. Whether the application was premature for failure to comply with statutory procedures under s.190 of the Registration of Titles Act.

Orders

  • Application granted as prayed.
  • The Registrar of Titles, whether by himself, his agents or servants, is restrained from carrying into effect his decision to cancel the applicants' respective titles comprised in Leasehold Register Volume 221 Folio 7 Plot 14 Nakasero Street and Leasehold Register Volume 22 Folio 9 Plot 29 Juwum Street until further orders from this court or until Civil Suit No. 385 of 1994 is finally disposed of.
  • The Registrar is ordered to appear before the High Court to substantiate and uphold his grounds for his decision to cancel the applicants' titles as contained in Annexture C within 5 clear days after service of this order upon the Registrar.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Registration of Titles — Procedure for Challenging Registrar's Decision — Requirement for Formal Application
Where the Registrar of Titles has already clearly indicated in writing the grounds for his decision and communicated the same to the proprietor or owner, there is no need for a formal application to the Registrar to restate those reasons before seeking High Court intervention under the Registration of Titles Act s.190. To require the Registrar to repeat what is already known would be an exercise in futility.
Administrative Jurisdiction — Interference with Pending Court Proceedings
The Registrar of Titles exceeds his jurisdiction and exhibits partiality by deciding matters that are already pending before a court of competent jurisdiction. Since such matters are sub judice, the Registrar should allow the law to take its course in court and should not usurp the function of the court by acting as both prosecutor and judge.
Registration of Titles Act — Section 190 — Costs of Application
Under s.190 of the Registration of Titles Act, an applicant who challenges the Registrar's decision bears his own costs regardless of the outcome, as the statute clearly provides that the application is made at the applicant's own cost.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (1)

  • Miscellaneous Cause No. 17 of 1992

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kakusa Investments And Others v Registrar Of Titles (Civil Suit No. 385 of 1994) [1994] UGHC 150 (23 November 1994)
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.