Wakilii

Katerega v Bamwiite and Others (Civil Suit 573 of 2020)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 183 · 2024 Both Suit and Counterclaim Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for permanent injunction, removal of caveat, and damages, with counterclaim for declaration of ownership and specific performance
Decision
Both main suit and counterclaim dismissed. Defendant's caveat removed. Permanent injunction granted protecting 2nd counter-defendant. 1st counter-defendant ordered to refund plaintiff UGX 80,000,000.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time 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

The court held that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant acquired valid title to the disputed land because their vendor (1st counter-defendant) had no lawful or equitable interest to convey. The memorandum of understanding between the vendor and the lawful occupants contravened Land Act s.34 by lacking the registered proprietor's consent and was therefore invalid. The 2nd counter-defendant lawfully acquired registered title through proper compliance with statutory requirements. The defendant, having received a refund of his purchase price in prior proceedings, was estopped from claiming the land. Both main suit and counterclaim were dismissed, the defendant's caveat was ordered removed, and a permanent injunction was granted protecting the 2nd counter-defendant's possession.

Outcome

Both main suit and counterclaim dismissed. Defendant's caveat removed. Permanent injunction granted protecting 2nd counter-defendant. 1st counter-defendant ordered to refund plaintiff UGX 80,000,000.

Facts

The plaintiff claimed he purchased land measuring 50 decimals at Kyadondo Block 182, plots 1924 and 1925 from the 1st counter-defendant in January 2015 for UGX 80,000,000, took possession, and planted bananas. The defendant/counter-claimant claimed he purchased the same land in March 2015 for UGX 75,000,000, took possession first, and constructed a perimeter wall. Both buyers relied on a memorandum of understanding between the 1st counter-defendant and former lawful occupants of the land. The 2nd counter-defendant acquired the land through proper legal process from the lawful occupant with consent of the registered proprietor, obtained registered title in March 2019, then executed transfer forms to the 1st counter-defendant in February 2019. The defendant had lodged a caveat in May 2019 and had previously filed suit for refund in Wakiso Chief Magistrate Court (CS 65/2018) which was withdrawn after settlement.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant is a trespasser on the suit land?
  2. Whether the defendant/counterclaimant has a valid claim/interest in the suit land against the 1st and 3rd counter-defendants?
  3. In the alternative, without prejudice to the above two issues, whether the defendant has any interest in the suit land which is registered in the names of the 2nd counter-defendant?
  4. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • The main suit and the counterclaim are both dismissed.
  • The Commissioner Land Registration is ordered to vacate the defendant's caveat lodged via instrument number WAK-00220865 on the certificates of title for land comprised in Kyadondo Block 182 plots 1924 and 1925 land at Bulindo-Kira Municipality Wakiso District.
  • A permanent injunction doth issue against the plaintiff and the defendant, their agents, assignees, successors in title, workmen and all those who claim or derive interest from them from harassing, trespassing, intimidating, developing or in any way interrupting the 2nd counter-defendant's use and enjoyment of the suit land.
  • The 1st counter-defendant is ordered to refund the plaintiff's purchase price for the suit land to a tune of UGX 80,000,000.
  • The 1st counter-defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the 2nd counter-defendant.
  • The plaintiff, the defendant/counter-claimant and 1st counter-defendant shall bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Lawful and Bonafide Occupants — Transactions by Tenants by Occupancy — Mandatory Consent of Registered Proprietor
Under Land Act s.34(1), (3) and (9), no transaction by a tenant by occupancy to assign, sublet or subdivide the tenancy is valid without the prior consent of the registered land owner, and the provisions requiring such consent are mandatory. A memorandum of understanding between lawful occupants and a third party which fails to obtain the registered proprietor's consent is invalid and illegal and passes no legal or equitable interest.
Transfer of Title — Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet Principle
For one to claim an interest in land, he or she must show acquisition from someone who previously had an interest or title thereto. Where a purported vendor has no legal or equitable interest in land, that vendor cannot pass any title to a purchaser, regardless of consideration paid or the purchaser's good faith.
Due Diligence in Land Transactions — Duty to Investigate
Land is not vegetables; properties bought from unknown sellers are valuable properties, and buyers are expected to make investigations not only of the land but also of the sellers before purchase. Where a purchaser has actual notice that land is neither registered in the vendor's name nor that the vendor is a lawful occupant, the purchaser is put on inquiry and cannot claim to have acquired valid title without proper due diligence.
Trespass to Land — Elements — Possession as Foundation
Trespass to land requires proof of three elements: that the disputed land belonged to the plaintiff; that the defendant entered upon the disputed land; and that the entry was unlawful or that the defendant had no claim of right or interest in the disputed land. The gist of an action for trespass is violation of possession, not title, and only one whose right to possession has been violated may maintain an action for trespass.
Certificate of Title — Conclusiveness under Registration of Titles Act s.59
Under Registration of Titles Act s.59, every certificate of title issued under the Act is conclusive evidence that the person named in the certificate as proprietor is seized or possessed of the estate or interest described. A person who acquires registered title through proper statutory compliance with Land Act requirements, including obtaining consent of the registered proprietor for transfer from a lawful occupant, holds valid and conclusive title.
Approbation and Reprobation — Election Between Inconsistent Remedies
The doctrine of approbation and reprobation provides that a person may not pursue inconsistent courses of conduct where he has elected one remedy and received benefits under it. Where a party withdraws a suit for refund of purchase price on grounds that payment was received, that party is estopped from subsequently claiming the land in fresh proceedings, as to do so would be to seek double benefits from inconsistent positions.
Burden of Proof — He Who Alleges Must Prove
Under Evidence Act ss.101–103, the burden of proof in a suit lies on the person who would fail if no evidence were given on either side, and he who alleges must prove. Where a plaintiff claims occupation through planting crops but produces no evidence of such plantation and the defendant has constructed permanent structures proving occupation, the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proving possession.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (15)

  • Justine E M N Lutaaya v Sterling (Civil Engineering Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Adrabo Stanley v Madira Jimmy (High Court Civil Suit No. 24 of 2013)
  • Sheikh Muhammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1987)
  • Ojwang v Wilson Bagonza (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2002)
  • Draza Moses v Abdul Salam and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 16 of 2013)
  • H.M Kadingidi v Essence Alphonse (High Court Civil Suit No. 269 of 1986)
  • Sir John Bagaire v Arsi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1996)
  • Kaggwa Micheal v Apire John (High Court Civil Appeal No. 126 of 2019)
  • Asher v Whitlock (1865) LR 1 QB 1
  • Mubende Parents School Limited v Uganda Development Bank (High Court Commercial Division Civil Suit No. 662 of 2015)
  • Evans v Bartlam (1987) AC 473
  • Amamu Limited v Barclays Bank of Uganda Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 21 of 2010)
  • Odongo Ochama Hussein v Adul Rajabi (High Court Civil Appeal No. 119 of 2018)
  • Fernades v Noroniha [1969] EA 506
  • Nsibambi v Nankya [1980] HCB 81

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Katerega_v_Bamwiite_and_Others_(Civil_Suit_573_of_2020)_[2024]_UGHCLD_183_(5_July_2024)
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.