Kiwanuka and Another v Wasswa( suing through lawful attorney katana) (Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2021)
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 where a purchaser pays the bulk of the purchase price for land and the vendors subsequently transfer the land to a third party without refunding the money, the vendors breach their contractual obligation to pass good title and must refund the money paid. The appellants' transfer of land to their son four months after receiving payment, leading to the land being mortgaged and forcing the respondent to repurchase it, constituted breach of contract justifying refund of the UGX 13,500,000/= paid.
Outcome
Lower court judgment ordering refund upheld; appellants to refund UGX 13,500,000/= with interest to respondent
Facts
The appellants sold land comprised in Kyadondo Block 200 Plot 1001 at Kawempe to the respondent under a sale agreement dated 14 April 2012 for UGX 16,400,000/=. The respondent paid UGX 13,500,000/= in two instalments (UGX 8,000,000/= on execution and UGX 3,500,000/= on 3 May 2012), with a balance of UGX 2,900,000/= to be paid after the appellants handed over the certificate of title to enable subdivision. On 26 September 2012, before completing the transaction, the appellants transferred the land to their son, Nsubuga Daniel, who immediately mortgaged it to Centenary Rural Development Bank for UGX 25,000,000/=. When Nsubuga defaulted on the loan, the bank initiated a forced sale. The respondent was prevented from taking possession by auctioneers and ultimately had to repurchase the property from the bank. The respondent sued in the Magistrate Grade I court at Nabweru for refund of the UGX 13,500,000/= paid. The trial magistrate found for the respondent, holding that the appellants' transfer of the land was unlawful and ordering refund with interest.
Issues
- Whether the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact to hold that the Respondent was entitled to a refund of UGX 13,500,000/=.
- Whether the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact when she failed to evaluate the evidence on record.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Decision of the lower court upholding refund of UGX 13,500,000/= with interest is upheld.
- Costs awarded to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
Cases cited (1)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.