Wakilii

Kisaka and 3 Others v Mulondo (Misc Cause 143 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 392 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to show cause why caveat should not be vacated and for removal of caveat and damages
Decision
Application dismissed; respondent granted 90 days to file suit to determine parties' rights

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

Court held that the respondent, as a beneficiary claiming interest in land inherited from a common grandfather, had reasonable cause to lodge a caveat over the suit land. The court dismissed the application to remove the caveat, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for removal. The respondent was given 90 days to file a suit to determine the parties' rights to finality, failing which the application may be granted upon proof.

Outcome

Application dismissed; respondent granted 90 days to file suit to determine parties' rights

Facts

The 1st applicant inherited land from his late father Amis Genza, sub-divided it, and sold portions to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th applicants while retaining a portion. The applicants are registered proprietors of Busiro Block 161 Plots 101, 102, 103, and 104 at Kasozo. The respondent, a cousin of the 1st applicant, lodged a caveat over all four plots. The respondent and the 1st applicant are biological grandchildren of the late Juma Kisaka, who owned the land. The respondent claimed that the 1st applicant fraudulently procured a certificate of title in 2019 over the residue of the grandfather's land, which contains burial grounds. The respondent had previously lodged a caveat in 2020 which was allegedly fraudulently removed, and lodged another caveat on 6 June 2023. The applicants sought removal of the caveat and compensation for its lodging without reasonable cause.

Issues

  1. Whether the caveat should be removed?
  2. Whether the caveat was lodged without a reasonable cause to warrant the award of compensation/damages?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • The respondent is given 90 days from the date of this ruling to file a suit where the rights of all parties will be determined to finality, and if he fails this court will be pleased to grant the application upon proof of the same.
  • Each party bears its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Caveats — Requirements for Lodging — Caveatable Interest
For one to lodge a caveat, he or she ought to have a legal or equitable interest in the land or any other caveatable interest that the caveat seeks to protect, otherwise the caveat would be invalid.
Land & Property — Caveats — Purpose and Duration — Temporary Protection
The primary objective of a caveat is to give the caveator temporary protection. It is not the intention of the law that the caveator should relax and sit back for eternity without taking actions and steps to handle the controversy so as to determine the rights of the parties affected by the existence of the caveat.
Land & Property — Caveats — Beneficiary Caveats — Who May Lodge
Under Section 140 of the Registration of Titles Act, any beneficiary or other person claiming any estate or interest in land by devolution in law or otherwise may lodge a caveat forbidding registration until after notice is given to the caveator or the caveator consents.
Civil Procedure — Caveats — Removal of Beneficiary Caveats — Exercise of Discretion
A beneficiary caveat may be removed by order of court. Where a court is determining whether a caveat ought to remain or be removed, it involves the exercise of discretion by the court hearing the application. The law on removal of beneficiary caveats is strict in nature.
Land & Property — Caveats — Removal — Reasonable Cause
A caveat lodged by a person claiming to be a beneficiary to land cannot be vacated without the court ascertaining and determining the rationale behind the caveat. Where a caveat has been recently lodged, it cannot be inferred that the caveator has relaxed for eternity without justifying the caveat.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (2)

  • Sentongo Produce and Coffee Farmers Limited and Another v Rose Nakafuma Muyisa (HCMC No. 690 of 1999)
  • Eng Mee Young and Others v Letchumanan s/o Velayutham [1980] AC 331

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kisaka_and_3_Others_v_Mulondo_(Misc_Cause_143_of_2023)_[2023]_UGHCLD_392_(6_November_2023)
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.