Kalule v Nassozi (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2014)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal, sitting as a second appellate court, found that the first appellate Judge had failed to properly re-evaluate the evidence and accordingly reappraised it. It held that the deceased father had given the appellant two acres of registered land as a gift inter vivos, placing him in possession and delivering the certificate of title, before his death. Such a donee ranks pari passu with a purchaser under section 167 of the Registration of Titles Act and may be registered as proprietor. The land therefore did not form part of the deceased's estate. The appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, and the appellant declared entitled to be registered as proprietor.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; appellant declared entitled to be registered as proprietor of the disputed land and the Commissioner for Land Registration ordered to register him.

Facts

The appellant and the second respondent were brothers, and the first respondent was the wife of their father, Daudi Banalikaki, the registered proprietor of two pieces of land in Kireka, Kyadondo. Banalikaki settled the appellant, born out of wedlock, on two acres comprised in Block 230 Plot 35 when the appellant was about seven years old, giving him possession in 1945 and delivering the certificate of title to him. The appellant lived on and used the land during and after his father's lifetime without interference. Banalikaki died intestate in 1978 and administration of his estate vested in the Administrator General. When the appellant sought to transfer the title in 1996, the respondents, through the Administrator General, blocked him and the land was distributed as part of the deceased's estate. The trial magistrate found a gift inter vivos and ruled for the appellant. The High Court reversed on appeal, holding the law did not recognise a verbal gift of registered land. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the appellant acquired an equitable interest in the disputed registered land by virtue of a gift inter vivos from his deceased father.
2. Whether a verbal gift of registered land, coupled with possession of the title deed and long occupation, can be recognised in law where no transfer was executed.
3. Whether the first appellate Judge properly re-evaluated the evidence on record.
4. Whether the appellate Judge erred in interfering with the trial magistrate's award of general damages and costs.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• Judgment of the High Court set aside and substituted with the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
• Declaration that the disputed land, Kyadondo Block 230 Plot 35 at Kamuli, was given to the appellant by his father as a gift inter vivos and does not form part of the deceased's estate.
• The appellant is entitled to be entered in the Register as proprietor of the land.
• The Commissioner for Land Registration is ordered to enter the appellant's name as proprietor of Kyadondo Block 230 Plot 35 at Kamuli.
• Each party to bear their own costs in this Court and the courts below.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Land Act s.29
• Registration of Titles Act s.92
• Registration of Titles Act s.166
• Registration of Titles Act s.167
• Registration of Titles Act s.177
• Judicature Act s.11

Cases cited (8)

• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• R. Mohammed All Hasham vs. R. (1941) 8 E.A.C.A.93
• In re Fry Deceased [1946] Ch 312
• Re Rose; Midland Bank Executor and Trustee Co Ltd v Rose [1949] Ch 78
• Re Rose; Rose v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1952] Ch 499
• Pennington v Waine [2002] 1 WLR 2075
• Macedo y Beatrice Stround [1922] Ac 330
• Mascall v Mascall (1984) 50 P & CR 119

Cases citing this judgment (3)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Odoc Alfred v Okori Raymond (Land Appeal No. 047 of 2021)
• Odoc Alfred v Okori Raymond (Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2021)
• Agel George v Ongom Alfred (Land Appeal No. 042 of 2021)

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