Katerega v Commissioner Land Registration & Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 347 of 2013)
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
Held that a judgment in rem that cancels and revokes certificates of title binds all persons interested in the land, including third parties not party to the suit. An applicant whose certificate of title was cancelled by court order cannot seek a temporary injunction over the same land under the cancelled title, as he discloses no cause of action and fails to establish a prima facie case. Application dismissed.
Outcome
Application dismissed; applicant bound by earlier judgment in rem that cancelled his certificate of title
Facts
The applicant sought a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from dealing with land comprised in Busiro Block 380 Plot 18, measuring 1.680 hectares, pending determination of the main suit. The applicant's certificate of title had been cancelled and revoked by the High Court in Civil Suit No. 85 of 2005, Patrick Lwanga v Edward Zimula & the Commissioner for Land Registration, which ordered cancellation of all titles carved out of Busiro Block 380 Plot 1 and restored the land as trust land. The applicant was not a party to Civil Suit No. 85 of 2005 but conceded in his plaint that his title was cancelled, though he contended the order was erroneous. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the applicant had no interest in the suit land and could not competently bring the application under a cancelled title.
Issues
- Whether the applicant has legal standing to seek a temporary injunction over land comprised in a certificate of title that was cancelled and revoked by a prior court judgment.
- Whether a judgment in rem binds third parties who were not parties to the original suit.
- Whether a consent judgment operates as a judgment in rem and binds third parties.
- Whether an applicant whose title was cancelled by court order has a cause of action to seek injunctive relief over the same land.
Orders
- Application for temporary injunction dismissed.
- Costs of the application awarded to the respondents.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
- Civil Procedure Act s.67
- Civil Procedure Act s.83
- Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.28
- Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.29
- Civil Procedure Rules O.21 r.7(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.1
Cases cited (9)
- Saroji Gandesha v Transroad Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2009)
- Caroline Turyatemba and 4 Others v Attorney General and Uganda Land Commission (Constitutional Petition No. 15 of 2006)
- Eleko Balume & 2 Others v Goodman Agencies Ltd and 2 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2012)
- Patrick Lwanga v Edward Zimula & the Commissioner for Land Registration (Civil Suit No. 85 of 2005)
- Nicholas Francois Marteemns & Others v. South African National Parks, Case No. 0117
- Adonia v Mutekanga [1970] EA 429
- Mohamed Albhai v E.E Bukenya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
- In Re Theresa Kaddu [1987] HCB 115
- SCOUL v Muhamud Tejan (High Court Civil Suit No. 39 of 1993)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.