Wakilii

Lokiri Luke Mikaire v Salim Rashid (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2017)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 415 · 2025 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court ruling on application to lift caveat
Decision
Caveat maintained; parties at liberty to file substantive suit on ownership

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 held that the Chief Magistrate's Court had jurisdiction to hear the application to lift the caveat as the matter did not involve cancellation of title under Section 161 of the Registration of Titles Act. However, the Trial Magistrate erred in applying the 60-day automatic lapse procedure under Section 124(2) where the respondent had instead invoked the judicial procedure under Section 124(1). The appeal succeeded in part; the caveat was ordered maintained and the parties were at liberty to file a substantive suit to determine ownership.

Outcome

Caveat maintained; parties at liberty to file substantive suit on ownership

Facts

The respondent purchased land comprised in Kyaggwe Block 116 Plot 1677 from Kibirige David on 21 December 2015 for UGX 40,000,000. The appellant had lodged a caveat on the land. The respondent filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 89 of 2016 in the Chief Magistrate's Court seeking orders to lift the caveat. The Trial Magistrate granted the application, declaring that the caveat had lapsed after 60 days from the date of filing and awarded costs to the respondent. The appellant appealed on grounds that the Chief Magistrate's Court lacked jurisdiction, that the 60-day lapse procedure was wrongly applied, that the respondent had no interest in the land, and that costs were improperly awarded.

Issues

  1. Whether the Chief Magistrate's Court had jurisdiction to entertain an application for lifting a caveat on land.
  2. Whether the Trial Magistrate correctly applied the 60-day notice procedure for lapse of caveats under Section 124(2) of the Registration of Titles Act.
  3. Whether the respondent had sufficient interest in the suit land to apply for removal of the caveat.
  4. Whether the Trial Magistrate properly exercised discretion in awarding costs.

Orders

  • Appeal succeeds in part.
  • The caveat on the suit property should be maintained and if removed it may be lodged again.
  • The parties are at liberty to file a substantive suit to address ownership of the suit land.
  • The ruling and orders of the trial court are set aside.
  • Each party shall meet their costs in this court and the court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Caveats — Jurisdiction to Lift Caveats — Distinction Between Removal of Caveat and Cancellation of Title
Section 161 of the Registration of Titles Act Cap 240 empowers only the High Court to direct cancellation of certificates of title or entries in the Register Book where land has been recovered in proceedings involving fraud or error under Section 160. However, removal of a caveat is a temporary remedy distinct from cancellation of title and does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction conferred by Section 161. A Chief Magistrate's Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for removal of a caveat under Section 124(1) of the Registration of Titles Act where the matter falls within its pecuniary jurisdiction and does not involve determination of ownership or cancellation of title.
Land & Property — Caveats — Removal Procedures — Judicial Procedure Under Section 124(1) Versus Administrative Lapse Under Section 124(2)
Section 124 of the Registration of Titles Act provides two distinct procedures for removal of caveats. Section 124(1) provides a judicial procedure whereby any person claiming under a transfer or instrument may summon the caveator to court to show cause why the caveat should not be removed. Section 124(2) provides an administrative procedure whereby a caveat is deemed to have lapsed upon expiration of 60 days after notice from the Registrar of Titles that the proprietor has applied for removal, provided the caveator does not file an affidavit in reply. Where an applicant invokes the judicial procedure under Section 124(1) by filing a court application, the court cannot apply the 60-day automatic lapse rule under Section 124(2) in the absence of proper notice from the Registrar of Titles.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion to Award Costs — Costs Following the Event
Under Section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, costs ordinarily follow the event unless the court for good reason orders otherwise. Where a trial court's decision is overturned on appeal such that the party who succeeded below did not in fact win, there is no basis for awarding costs to that party. The discretion to award costs must be exercised judicially and with reasons.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (2)

  • Father Nanensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tiberaga (SCCA No. 17 of 2000)
  • Lovinsa Nankya v Nsibambi [1980] HCB 81

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lokiri_Luke_Mikaire_v_Salim_Rashid_(Civil_Appeal_No._10_of_2017)_[2025]_UGHCLD_415_(6_October_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.