Lwanga v Lubwama & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 47 of 2024)

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 High Court dismissed the application to remove a caveat as moot. Although the court found that the 1st Respondent's affidavit in reply contained inadmissible hearsay evidence, the application had been overtaken by events because the Commissioner Land Registration had already administratively removed the caveat before the hearing and the applicant had subdivided the land. The court held that it would not issue orders in vain where the relief sought had already been obtained through parallel administrative procedures.

Outcome

Application dismissed as moot because the caveat had already been removed administratively and the land subdivided

Facts

The applicant purchased land comprised in Busiro Block 313 Plot 950 measuring 11.5 acres (4.690 hectares) from the 1st respondent in 1998 and was registered as proprietor on 16 July 1998. In 2019, the 1st respondent lodged a caveat claiming he had only sold 10 acres and that the applicant had improperly obtained an additional 1.5 acres. The 1st respondent took no further legal action to pursue his claim for five years. Meanwhile, the applicant applied to the Commissioner Land Registration in February 2024 to remove the caveat. On 4 March 2024, notice to the caveator was issued, and the caveat was administratively removed by June 2024. The applicant also subdivided the original plot into multiple plots (10919 to 10992) pursuant to a mutation form lodged on 17 March 2024. The applicant then brought this miscellaneous cause seeking court orders to remove the caveat and for general damages of UGX 50,000,000.

Issues

1. Whether the affidavit in reply was incompetent for lack of written authority from the 1st Respondent
2. Whether the affidavit in reply contained inadmissible hearsay evidence
3. Whether the respondents showed just cause why the caveat should not be removed

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• Registration of Titles Act s.140(1)
• Registration of Titles Act s.142
• Registration of Titles Act s.145
• Registration of Titles Act s.188
• Judicature Act s.33
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 3 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 3 r.2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 r.3(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 r.2

Cases cited (7)

• MHK Engineering Services (U) Ltd v Madowell Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 825 of 2018)
• Jethro Jones Opollot v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 687 of 2021)
• Namutebi Matilda v Ssemanda Simon & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 430 of 2021)
• Otime John v Uganda Civil Aviation Authority & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 301 of 2021)
• Rutungu Properties Limited v Linda Harriet Carrington & Another (Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2010)
• Boynes Versus Gather (1969) EA 383
• Nakabuye Agnes v Martin Strokes & Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 38 of 2021)

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.

• Umeme Limited v Makubuya William T A Polla Plast and Others (Miscellaneous Cause 60 of 2024; Miscellaneous Cause No. 47 & 60 of 2024)

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