Wakilii

Kolya v Nantongo and 2 Others (Misc Cause No. 39 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 12 · 2022 Application Dismissed 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 remains in place pending determination of appeal by Court of Appeal

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 court dismissed an application to vacate a caveat lodged on registered land. Under Registration of Titles Act s.140(1), a caveator must show cause why a caveat should not be removed after the statutory period lapses. The court found it premature to vacate the caveat where a pending appeal existed, as maintaining the status quo was necessary to enable the Court of Appeal to settle the appeal first.

Outcome

Caveat remains in place pending determination of appeal by Court of Appeal

Facts

The applicant, Daudi Kolya, sought orders to vacate a caveat lodged by the respondents (Christine Nantongo and Namuddu Marjorie) on land comprised in Block 244 Plot 5198 Kisugu. The caveat was registered as Instrument No. KCCA-U007-0074090. The application was opposed by affidavit in reply from Marjorie Namuddu. The respondents indicated that there was a pending appeal before the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the caveat lodged by the respondents on Block 244 Plot 5198 Kisugu should be vacated.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Caveats — Removal — Burden on Caveator to Show Cause
Under Registration of Titles Act s.140(1), once a caveator files a caveat, the caveator has the burden to show cause why the caveat should not be removed after the statutory period lapses.
Caveats — Premature Removal — Pending Appeal
It is premature to vacate a caveat where there is a pending appeal, as it is necessary to retain the status quo to enable the appellate court to first settle the appeal.

Legislation cited (1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kolya_v_Nantongo_and_2_Others_(Misc_Cause_No._39_of_2021)_[2022]_UGHCLD_12_(7_February_2022)
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.