Wakilii

Kiggundu v Kamoga and Another [2025] UGHC 168

High Court · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to vacate a caveat lodged on registered land
Decision
Caveat vacated and removed from the register

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 granted the application to vacate a caveat lodged on registered land. The court held that the caveator failed to demonstrate a caveatable interest at the time of lodging the caveat, as no sufficient evidence was presented of tenancy by occupancy or any legal or equitable interest. The court declined to determine limitation and compensation issues, striking out the limitation issue as inapplicable to caveat applications and the compensation issue to avoid prejudging a pending civil suit.

Outcome

Caveat vacated and removed from the register

Facts

The Applicant purchased land comprised in Busiro Block 436 Plot 36 from Bukaya Holdings Ltd in 2011 and was registered as proprietor. He took immediate possession and fenced the land. In April 2024, the 1st Respondent, claiming to hold powers of attorney from Kawuki Lawrence Mukisa Ssebutinde (alleged beneficiary of the estate of the late Ssebutinde Emmanuel), lodged a caveat alleging tenancy by occupancy. The 1st Respondent claimed his father owned a kibanja of approximately 6 acres, that crops were destroyed in 2002 by one Mark Graves who promised compensation, and that they were chased from the land in 2009. The 1st Respondent's father fell sick in 2010 and died in 2011 without instituting proceedings. The 1st Respondent returned from South Sudan in 2023 and lodged the caveat in 2024, subsequently filing Civil Suit No. 812 of 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st Respondent's claim is barred by limitation and if so, whether the same can be a basis for lodging a caveat.
  2. Whether the 1st Respondent has a caveatable interest on the suit land.
  3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to compensation from the 1st Respondent for lodging the caveat without reasonable cause.

Orders

  • The caveat lodged by the 1st Respondent on land comprised in Busiro Block 436 Plot 36 at Bakaya measuring approximately 13.248 Hectares is vacated/removed.
  • The 1st Respondent shall pay the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Affidavits — Capacity to Depose — Power of Attorney — Requirement to Attach Written Authority
There is no express provision of law requiring that a power of attorney or written authority be attached to an affidavit to render it valid. The law on affidavits is mainly concerned with the deponent's knowledge or belief of facts relevant to the matter at hand, rather than written authorization by a party. Where the deponent demonstrates knowledge of the facts deposed to, that is sufficient, notwithstanding failure to attach a power of attorney.
Limitation — Applicability to Caveat Applications
The issue of time limitation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies only to suits for recovery of land and cannot be determined in an application to vacate a caveat. Such applications are governed by the Registration of Titles Act provisions on caveats, not the Limitation Act's provisions on recovery actions.
Caveats — Caveatable Interest — Requirements for Validity
For a caveat to be valid under Section 140 of the Registration of Titles Act, the caveator must have a caveatable interest, whether legal or equitable, in the land at the time of lodging the caveat. A mere claim of tenancy by occupancy without supporting evidence demonstrating the legal or equitable basis of such interest is insufficient to sustain a caveat.
Caveats — Burden of Proof — Substantiation of Interest
Where a caveator claims an interest based on alleged events such as destruction of crops and promises of compensation, the caveator must present evidence substantiating those claims. Assertions unsupported by documentary or other credible evidence of the alleged destruction, compensation agreements, or the relationship between the caveator and registered proprietors at relevant times will not establish a caveatable interest.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (15)

  • MHK Engineering Services U Ltd v Macdowell Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 825 of 2018)
  • Black Market Records v Malinga Sulaiman and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2788 of 2023)
  • Mayania Joshua Kaiubi v Wasswa Amon Bwogi and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 44 of 2016)
  • Namutebi Matilda v Ssemanda Simon and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 430 of 2021)
  • Ikonero Mubatak and Another v Wagagai Mining Ltd and Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 03 of 2023)
  • FX Miramago v Attorney General [1979] HCB 24
  • Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Totoro Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Amin Aroga Vs Haili Muhammad Anule (2018)
  • Ssentogo Produce & Coffee Farmers Ltd v Rose Nakafuma (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 690 of 1990)
  • Edward Frederick Ssempebwa and Another v Ndyagumanawe Richard Douglaus and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 149 of 2023)
  • Sir John Bagere v Ausi Matovu (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1996)
  • Isreal Kabwa v Martin Banoba Musiga (Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1995)
  • Boynes v Gathure (1969) EA 385
  • Registered Trustees of the Daughters of St. Theresa of the Child of Jesus (Banyatereza Sisters) v Kabeizi Patricia (Miscellaneous Application No. 43 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiggundu v Kamoga and Another 2025 UGHC 168 (22 January 2025)
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.