Kiwanuka v Mubiru (through his lawful Attorneys Nambi and Ndagire) (Civil Appeal 39 of 2011)

Observed later treatment

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 Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a person suing in a representative capacity must plead and prove that capacity; the bare assertion in a power of attorney that the donor was administrator, unsupported by letters of administration, did not establish locus standi to apply for a vesting order. The Court further held that section 167 of the Registration of Titles Act confers power to make a vesting order on the Registrar of Titles in non-contentious completed purchases, not on the High Court; only section 166 gives the High Court original jurisdiction to vest property in a trustee. The High Court's order was set aside and the application dismissed. The cross-appeal on costs failed.

Outcome

Appeal allowed, High Court vesting order set aside and the respondent's application dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed

Facts

The respondent, through his lawful attorneys, applied to the High Court for a vesting order in respect of 20 acres forming part of Busiro Block 383 Plot 56 at Kitende, being mailo land formerly registered in the name of the late Yayeri Kivefumbiro. The respondent claimed that the late Emmanuel Mubiru had purchased the land from Yayeri under a 1985 sale agreement for UGX 2,000,000, but both purchaser and vendor died before transfer could be effected. The application was brought under sections 166, 167 and 180 of the Registration of Titles Act. The supporting affidavit of Justine Nambi asserted that the donor of the power of attorney had been granted letters of administration to the estate of the late Emmanuel Mubiru, promising to produce them at trial, but no letters of administration were ever adduced and no administration cause was referenced. The trial Judge granted the vesting order and ordered each party to bear own costs. The appellant, administrator of Yayeri's estate, appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent had locus standi to apply for a vesting order in the absence of proof of letters of administration to the estate of the deceased purchaser.
2. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to make a vesting order under section 167 of the Registration of Titles Act.
3. Whether the trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence in granting the vesting order.
4. Whether the trial Judge erred in ordering each party to bear its own costs (cross-appeal).

Orders

• This appeal is allowed as it substantially succeeds and the judgment of the High Court is set aside and substituted with this judgment in which the application of the respondent is dismissed.
• The cross appeal fails and is dismissed.
• The respondent shall pay half of the costs of this appeal to the appellant.
• No order is made as to costs at the High Court.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (27)

• Registration of Titles Act cap 230 s.166
• Registration of Titles Act cap 230 s.167
• Registration of Titles Act cap 230 s.174
• Registration of Titles Act cap 230 s.177
• Registration of Titles Act cap 230 s.180
• Registration of Titles Act cap 230 s.182
• Registration of Titles Act cap 230 s.185
• Registration of Titles Act cap 230 s.147
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 rules 1 & 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 4
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 8(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 15 rule 2
• Civil Procedure Act s.27
• Succession Act cap 162 s.36
• Succession Act cap 162 s.50
• Succession Act cap 162 s.181
• Succession Act cap 162 s.188
• Succession Act cap 162 s.191
• Evidence Act cap 6 s.66
• Evidence Act cap 6 s.72(1)
• Evidence Act cap 6 s.92
• Evidence Act cap 6 s.101
• Evidence Act cap 6 s.102
• Evidence Act cap 6 s.106
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda article 139
• Judicature Act cap 13 s.14
• Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 30(1)

Cases cited (11)

• Aida Najjemba v Esther Mpagi (Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2005)
• The Returning Officer Kampala v Catherine Naava Nabagesera (Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1997)
• Selle & Anor. v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd [1968] EA 123
• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
• Habre International Co. Ltd v Abraham Alayakha (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1999)
• Israel Kubwa (Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1995)
• Kampala Bottlers v Damanico (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1999)
• John Ntanda Masanyalaze v Rita Nanono (Civil Appeal No. 86 of 2008)
• Alfred Tajor v Uganda; EACA Cr. App. No 167 of 1969
• Peters v Sunday Post Limited [1958] 1 EA 424
• Re Ivan Mutaka [1975] HCB 27

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Kirenga v Commissioner of Customs Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 15 of 2013)

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