Wakilii

Kasirye v Semwogerere & Anor (Civil Suit N0. 186 of 2009)

High Court · [2013] UGHCLD 2 · 2013 Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for ejectment, permanent injunction, mesne profits, and damages arising from a land title dispute
Decision
Plaintiff's suit dismissed; fraudulent title for plot 995 cancelled; defendants' mailo and leasehold interests declared valid

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 found that the certificate of title for plot 995 was fraudulently created without proper authorization from the Administrator General and that the plaintiff knowingly participated in defeating the defendants' unregistered but existing interests. The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving lawful title issuance. Plot 995 did not lawfully exist and plot 1252 did not encroach upon it. All transfers from the Administrator General to the plaintiff were invalid as they lacked proper documentation, consideration, and were tainted by fraud. The second defendant's leasehold interest was valid. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Plaintiff's suit dismissed; fraudulent title for plot 995 cancelled; defendants' mailo and leasehold interests declared valid

Facts

The plaintiff claimed ownership of plot 995 through a chain of transfers originating from the Administrator General. He sought to eject the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant (who held a leasehold interest granted by the 1st defendant over plot 1252) alleging encroachment. The 1st defendant held title to plot 1252, created through a proper survey process by the Commissioner of Lands and the Administrator General. The 2nd defendant, a stone quarrying company, had been in occupation and possession since May 2007 under a registered lease dated 15 February 2008. The plaintiff acquired his title in July 2008, after the defendants' registrations, and admitted in testimony that he knew the 2nd defendant was in possession. The Administrator General categorically denied authorizing the creation of plot 995 or any transfers from it. Evidence showed plot 995 was created without proper documentation and transferred through multiple parties in quick succession with no or inconsistent consideration stated.

Issues

  1. Whether the certificate of title for land comprised in Mailo Register Block 82 plot 995 was lawfully issued.
  2. Whether the plaintiff has a valid interest in land comprised in Mailo Register Block 82 plot 995.
  3. Whether the land comprised in Mailo register Block 82 plot 1252 encroaches on the land comprised in Mailo Register Block 82 plot 995.
  4. What is the status of the 2nd defendant's leasehold interest in so far as it was granted over land comprised in Mailo Register Block 82 plot 995.
  5. Whether the various transfers from the Administrator General and eventually to the plaintiff were valid.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs.
  • The Commissioner of Land Registration is ordered to cancel the certificate of title for plot 995 and the registration of the plaintiff immediately.
  • Miscellaneous Application No. 79 of 2011 is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Land Registration — Fraudulent Title Creation — Participation in Fraud
Where a person procures registration to defeat an unregistered interest of another person of which he is proved to have knowledge, such a person is guilty of fraud and the registration may be impeached under Registration of Titles Act s.176(3).
Land Registration — Constructive Notice — Occupation by Third Party
If a person purchases an estate which he knows to be in the occupation of another than the vendor, he is bound by all the equities which the party in such occupation may have in the land. Occupation of land constitutes constructive notice to a purchaser of the rights of the occupier.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Failure to Call Material Witness
Where a party fails to call a key witness whose testimony would be material to the case, an adverse inference may be drawn against that party that such witness's evidence would not have supported their case.
Land Registration — Transfers Without Consideration — Bonafide Purchaser for Value
A transfer not made for valuable consideration cannot confer the status of bonafide purchaser for value. Under Registration of Titles Act s.64, registered title may be impeached on grounds of fraud and lack of valuable consideration.
Land Registration — Administrator General — Proper Procedure for Transfer
Where the Administrator General administers an estate, proper procedure requires formal application for registration of the Administrator General followed by use of a standard transfer form. A mere letter purporting to dispose of land does not constitute a valid instrument of transfer and transfers made without following proper procedure are invalid.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (13)

  • Kihuku & 2 Others v Personal Representatives of Rt. Rev. Eric Sabiit [1995] V KALR
  • Katalikawe v Katwiremu (1977) HCB 187
  • Kampala District Land Board v Babweyaka & 3 Others [2008] HCB 22
  • Uganda Posts and Telecommunications v Kitumba Peter & Lutaya (Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1995)
  • Jesse v Smith (1841) 1 Here 43
  • Taylor v Stibbert (1803) -13) Aller 432
  • Burburt v Greenshields (1853) 9 KCC PCC 18
  • National Provincial Bank ltd vs Hastings Car Mart Ltd & Others [1964] 1 ALLER 683
  • Hodgson vs Marks & another [1970] 3 ALLER 513
  • J.K Patel v Spear Motors Ltd [1993] KALR 85
  • Waimiha Saw Milling Co. Ltd vs Waione Timber Co. ltd. (1926) AC 101
  • Assets Co. vs Mere Roihi (1905) Ac 176
  • Lusweswe v Kasule & Anor (HCCS No. 1010 of 1983)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasirye v Semwogerere & Anor (Civil Suit N0. 186 of 2009) [2013] UGHCLD 2 (22 January 2013)
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.