Kayongo and 4 Others v Commissioner Land Registration and Another (Misc Cause 98 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.
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 dismissed an application seeking removal of a caveat lodged by the Commissioner Land Registration. The court held that the Commissioner acted lawfully in lodging the caveat to prevent dealings on the title while complying with earlier court orders from Misc. Application 2310 of 2021 requiring corrections to the title. The applicants' attempt to register themselves on the title before those corrections were effected constituted contempt of the earlier court order, and the caveat was necessary to preserve the status quo pending compliance with court directions.
Outcome
Application dismissed; caveat remains in place
Facts
The applicants sought removal of a caveat lodged by the Commissioner Land Registration (1st respondent) on a land title in the applicants' names. The 1st respondent had been ordered in Miscellaneous Application No. 2310 of 2021 to effect certain corrections on the title. Before the 1st respondent could complete these court-ordered corrections, the applicants caused themselves to be registered on the title. The 1st respondent then lodged a caveat to prevent further dealings with the title pending compliance with the earlier court order. The applicants argued the caveat was lodged in bad faith and the legal basis for it did not apply. The 1st respondent opposed the application through an affidavit from Bigira Johnson dated 26 October 2022, arguing the caveat was necessary to fulfil statutory duties and prevent registration contrary to court orders.
Issues
- Whether the 1st respondent (Commissioner Land Registration) was justified in lodging a caveat on the applicants' land title.
- Whether the caveat lodged by the 1st respondent should be removed.
Orders
- Application dismissed with costs against the applicants.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995
- Judicature Act Cap 13
- Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules S.I No. 11 of 2009 Rule 6
- Judicature (Amendment) Rules 2019 Rule 74
- Civil Procedure Rules
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.