Wakilii

Kassam v Commissioner for Land Registration and Another (Miscellaneous Application 524 of 96)

High Court · [1997] UGHC 5 · 1997 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by motion under section 190 Registration of Titles Act seeking reinstatement of caveats and de-registration of transfers
Decision
Application struck out for defective affidavit

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 struck out the application on preliminary objections. While the court declined to determine locus standi at the preliminary stage, it found the supporting affidavit fundamentally defective on three grounds: it contained falsehoods and inconsistencies (including wrongful characterisation of lawful court orders and allegations of collusion without evidentiary basis); it offended Order 17 Rule 3(1) by failing to distinguish knowledge from belief and omitting sources of information; and the annextures were not properly sealed as required by Rule 8 of the Commissioner for Oaths rules, rendering the application incompetent.

Outcome

Application struck out for defective affidavit

Facts

The applicant, Feroz Kassam, brought an application under section 190 of the Registration of Titles Act seeking orders that the Commissioner for Land Registration reinstate his caveats and de-register transfers to M/s Heera Investments Ltd. The second respondent was joined by court order. The application was supported by the applicant's affidavit. The first and second respondents jointly raised preliminary objections challenging the applicant's locus standi as a non-registered proprietor, and alleging the supporting affidavit was defective because it contained falsehoods and inconsistencies, failed to disclose sources of information and belief as required by Order 17 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and had annextures that were not properly sealed under Rule 8 of the Commissioner for Oaths rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant, not being a registered proprietor, had locus standi under section 190 of the Registration of Titles Act to bring the application.
  2. Whether the supporting affidavit contained falsehoods or inconsistencies rendering the application incompetent.
  3. Whether the supporting affidavit offended against Order 17 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules by failing to distinguish matters of knowledge from belief and failing to disclose sources of information.
  4. Whether the annextures to the affidavit were properly sealed in accordance with Rule 8 of the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Rules.

Orders

  • The application is struck out.
  • Costs to be borne by the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Land Law — Registration of Titles — Locus Standi under Section 190
Where an applicant's ownership status (whether equitable or statutory) is fundamentally in issue both in the application and in pending substantive proceedings, the question of locus standi under section 190 of the Registration of Titles Act cannot be sufficiently disposed of at a preliminary stage and must be determined by delving into the substance of the application.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Falsehoods and Inconsistencies
An affidavit that contains obvious falsehoods or material inconsistencies is fundamentally defective and renders an application incompetent, as a sworn affidavit is not a document to be treated lightly and an applicant must come to court with clean hands to tell the truth.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Characterisation of Lawful Court Orders
An affidavit that characterises a valid court order as 'wrongful' or 'unlawful' before it has been overturned on appeal or review constitutes a falsehood, as a court order is valid and lawful unless and until it has been set aside by a subsequent order.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Order 17 Rule 3(1) — Disclosure of Sources
An affidavit that fails to distinguish between matters stated on personal knowledge and matters stated on information or belief, and that fails to disclose the sources of information or grounds of belief, offends Order 17 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and renders the affidavit defective and the accompanying notice of motion incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Sealing of Exhibits
Rule 8 of the Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Rules requires that all exhibits to affidavits be securely sealed under the seal of the Commissioner, and failure to comply with this requirement renders the affidavit irregular and incompetent, as the rule is intended to protect and guarantee the probative value of the affidavit and its annextures.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Mutalana & 4 Others v Kananura [1977] HCB 34
  • Mulira v Bashambada SS and Another [1971] ULR 289
  • Kabirukya v Kasijja [1981] HCB 251

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kassam v Commissioner for Land Registration and Another (Miscellaneous Application 524 of 96) [1997] UGHC 5 (20 February 1997)
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.