Wakilii

Kasisiri and Another v Byamugisha and Others (Civil Suit No.46 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 505 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declarations of title, cancellation of fraudulent registrations, and eviction from land
Decision
Plaintiffs restored as lawful owners of the suit land. Defendants' fraudulently obtained titles cancelled. Defendants evicted from the suit land.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 the plaintiffs had customary interests in the suit land by purchase from indigenous customary owners before the 1st defendant fraudulently included their land in his certificate of title under Registration of Titles Act. The 1st defendant used a non-existent company, Deliana (U) Ltd, and armed soldiers to silence the plaintiffs' protests during survey. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants were not bonafide purchasers for value, having purchased from a vendor who was not a registered proprietor at the time of sale and with notice of existing caveats. The plaintiffs' title was restored and certificates fraudulently obtained were cancelled.

Outcome

Plaintiffs restored as lawful owners of the suit land. Defendants' fraudulently obtained titles cancelled. Defendants evicted from the suit land.

Facts

In 2000, the 1st plaintiff purchased three square miles of land at Kyarushesha, Kyangwali, Hoima from Irumba Sebastian and Barongo Julius for UGX 4 million. He took possession, gave part to his son (2nd plaintiff), and both used it for cultivation and grazing. They applied to bring the land under the Registration of Titles Act. In 2001, the 1st defendant emerged claiming to represent a company called Deliana (U) Ltd and filed applications for land across Nkondo Road in Koya village, but during the survey exercise included the plaintiffs' land in Kasiba village. The 1st defendant silenced the plaintiffs' protests using armed soldiers. The 1st defendant obtained certificates of title in his name and in the name of Deliana (U) Ltd, despite the plaintiffs lodging caveats. He then sold to the 2nd defendant, who sold portions to the 3rd and 4th defendants. A search revealed Deliana (U) Ltd was not a registered company in Uganda. Prior litigation in CS No. 4/2013 found Deliana (U) Ltd to be fictitious and cancelled its title.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiffs had customary interest in the suit land at the time it was brought under the operation of the Registration of Titles Act.
  2. Whether or not the suit land was fraudulently brought under the Registration of Titles Act.
  3. Whether or not the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants were bonafide purchasers for value without notice.
  4. What are the remedies available to the parties.

Orders

  • Declaration that the plaintiffs are the lawful owners of the suit land located at Mahamba/Kasiba village, Kyangwali, Hoima.
  • Declaration that the inclusion of the plaintiffs' land in the certificate of title of the 1st defendant and Deliana (U) Ltd was wrongful and illegal.
  • Declaration that the certificates of title issued in the names of the 1st defendant and Deliana (U) Ltd were obtained fraudulently.
  • Declaration that the registration of the 2nd defendant and the 4th defendant as transferees of the suit land was illegal and fraudulent.
  • Order directing cancellation of the registration of the 1st defendant as proprietor and of the 2nd and 4th defendants as transferees and cancellation of the whole of title of land comprised in Buhaguzi, Block 2 Plot 6, Mahamba Kyangwali, Hoima.
  • Order of eviction of the 2nd, 3rd and/or 4th defendants, their agents, workmen, servants and employees from the suit land.
  • Defendants to pay jointly and severally general damages of UGX 400,000,000 for trespass on the plaintiffs' land and inconvenience, stress and mental anguish.
  • General damages to carry interest of 24% per annum from 17 October 2012 till full payment.
  • Defendants to pay costs of the suit to the plaintiffs.
  • The declarations and orders settle the rights of the parties in the stayed Masindi Civil Suits Nos. 22 and 26 of 2009.

Rules and key headnotes

Customary Tenure — Proof of Customary Interest — Purchase from Indigenous Owners
Where a plaintiff establishes by evidence that he purchased land from indigenous owners who had customary interest demonstrated by cultivation of crops and grazing of animals, and was in the process of bringing the land under the Registration of Titles Act, the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut such facts.
Customary Law — Burden of Proof — When Expert Evidence Required
Not all cases of proof of customary tenure ownership require expert evidence. Where a party does not rely on a peculiar custom or customary law but rather pleads and proves acquisition of land by purchase of customary interest from former owners, the party need only prove the circumstances of acquisition, not the custom or customary law itself.
Fraud — Knowledge of Unregistered Interest — Use of Non-Existent Entity
Where a defendant's knowledge of a plaintiff's unregistered interest is accompanied by knowledge that he was using a fictitious company to acquire the land, and the acquisition was intended to defeat the plaintiff's existing interest, such conduct amounts to fraud under the Registration of Titles Act.
Registration of Titles Act — Bonafide Purchaser for Value — Vendor Not Registered Proprietor
A purchaser cannot qualify as a bonafide purchaser for value without notice where at the time of purchase the vendor was not the registered proprietor of the land. A vendor must be the registered proprietor at the time of sale to pass a valid title to a purchaser under the Registration of Titles Act.
Bonafide Purchaser — Notice — Effect of Caveat on Title
A purchaser who conducts a perfunctory search of the title before purchase and fails to investigate existing caveats takes the land subject to existing equitable interests and cannot successfully rely on the doctrine of bonafide purchaser for value without notice.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (14)

  • Kampala District Land Board and Another v Venansio Babweyaka and 2 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
  • Balamu Bwetagaine and Another v Zephania Kadooba Kiiza (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2009)
  • R Vs Ndembera s/o Mwandawale (1947) 14 E.A.C.A 85
  • Kinyanjui Kimani Vs Muira Gikanga [1965] E.A 735
  • Marko Matovu & 2 Ors Vs Sseviri & Anor [1979] HCB 174
  • Mivumbi-Katale and 2 Others v Tamale (High Court Civil Suit No. 384 of 2008)
  • Katarikawe Vs Katwiremu & Anor [1977] HCB 214
  • David Sejjaka v Rebecca Musoke (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1985)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Nasula Akongo v Oyat Francis Otoo (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2011)
  • Francis Kiyaga v Josephine Ssegujja and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2010)
  • Erick Kimbowa v Bernard Kasitro (High Court Civil Suit No. 197 of 2009)
  • UPTC v AKPM Lutaya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1995)
  • Namwaki and 2 Others v Wanguto (High Court Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2010)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasisiri and Another v Byamugisha and Others (Civil Suit No.46 of 2023) [2023] UGHC 505 (17 May 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.