Kalimbi v The Registered Trustees & Another (HCT-01-CV-LD 20 of 2014)
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 held that a verbal gift inter vivos of registered land is not recognized under Ugandan law and requires a deed or written instrument. However, where an administrator of an intestate estate executes transfer forms in favour of a beneficiary, that transfer is valid unless the administrator's authority is challenged. A caveat lodged for over fourteen years without the caveator taking steps to establish his interest with finality must be removed. The plaintiff was entitled to registration as proprietor based on the valid transfer from the administrator.
Outcome
Plaintiff declared entitled to registration as proprietor; caveat removed; permanent injunction granted against 2nd defendant
Facts
The suit land was registered in the name of Lydia Turigye as administrator of the estate of the late Mauda Tumwesigye, who died intestate on 27 July 2004. The plaintiff claimed the land was given to him as a gift inter vivos by the deceased during her lifetime. Lydia Turigye, the plaintiff's mother and administrator, signed transfer forms in the plaintiff's favour. The 2nd defendant, also a nephew of the deceased, claimed the land was allocated to him at a family meeting held four days after the deceased's death, on 1 August 2004, before any letters of administration were granted. The 2nd defendant lodged a caveat on 18 August 2008 to protect his claimed interest. Lydia Turigye was registered as proprietor on 19 November 2010. The plaintiff could not complete registration due to the caveat. The 2nd defendant took no further steps to establish his interest with finality for over fourteen years.
Issues
- Whether the caveat lodged by the 2nd defendant on the suit land should be vacated
- Whether the plaintiff should be registered as proprietor of the suit land
Orders
- The 1st defendant is directed to remove the caveat lodged by the 2nd defendant on the land comprised in Bunyangabu Block 26 Plot 4 at Burongo in present day Rubona Town Council in Bunyangabu district.
- The 1st defendant is directed to register the plaintiff as the proprietor of the suit land upon payment of the statutory fees.
- A permanent injunction is issued to restrain the 2nd defendant from dealing with the suit land whatsoever.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
Cases cited (8)
- Lancaster v Blackwell Colliery Co Ltd (1982) WC Rep 345
- Sebuliba v Cooperative Bank Ltd (1982) HCB 130
- Ssegirinya Gerald v Mutebi Innocent (HCMA No. 081 of 2016)
- John Kihika & Kaidoli William v Absolom Tinkamanyire (CACA No. 086 of 2014)
- Sir John Bagire v Matovu Ausi (CACA No. 07 of 1996)
- Isreal Kabwa v Martin Banoba (SCCA No. 52 of 1995)
- Joy Mukobe v Wambuwu (HCCA No. 055 of 2005)
- Bayes v Gathure [1966] EA 385
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.