Katusiime v Kakururu & Another (Civil Suit 5 of 2022)

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.

Holding

The High Court held that a valid land sale agreement existed between the plaintiff and the late registered proprietor. The suit land was not family land because the spouses were legally separated at the time of the sale, and the property was not used as a matrimonial home or source of family sustenance. Section 38A of the Land Act, which requires spousal consent for transactions in family land, does not apply to spouses who are legally separated. The caveat lodged by the vendor's former spouse was ordered vacated.

Outcome

Plaintiff's suit allowed. Defendants' counter-claim dismissed. Title to remain with Plaintiff; caveat vacated.

Facts

In 2017, the late John Kelesensio Kakururu approached the plaintiff to sell him land comprised in Block 4, Plot 850 Nyakayina, Kigezi to raise funds for medical treatment. On 5 January 2018, the plaintiff purchased the suit land for UGX 85,000,000 and took possession on 10 January 2018. The 1st Defendant, the late vendor's former wife, lodged a caveat claiming the land was a matrimonial home and family land from which she and her children derived livelihood. The vendor died on 9 September 2020 before resolving the caveat dispute. The 1st Defendant had been married to the vendor in a church marriage in 1958 but testified she had legally separated from him about 15 years before the 2018 sale. The suit land was bush at the time of purchase and had no ordinary residence or crops on it. The plaintiff cultivated crops after taking possession. The court visited the locus in quo on 7 July 2023 and found only the plaintiff's crops.

Issues

1. Whether there was a valid sale of land comprised in Plot 850 Block 4 Kigezi between the Plaintiff and the late Kakururu Kelesensio.
2. Whether the suit land was family land requiring spousal consent under Section 38A of the Land Act.
3. What are the available remedies to the parties?

Orders

• Declaration that the suit land described as Block 4, Plot 850 Nyakayina, Kigezi belongs to the Plaintiff.
• Declaration that the Defendants' actions on the suit land amount to trespass.
• Order that the 1st Defendant's caveat on the suit land's Certificate of Title be vacated.
• Defendants' counter-claim dismissed.
• Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Land Act s.38A(4)
• Land Act s.38A(5)
• Land Act s.39(1)(c)
• Land Act s.39(2)
• Civil Procedure Act s.27(2)

Cases cited (1)

• Oryem David v Omony Phillip (Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2018)

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