Makumbi v Mawejje (Misc Cause No. 15 of 2022)
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
Application to remove caveat dismissed. The court held that determination of ownership of land comprised in Block 8 Plot 864 Namirembe/Mengo requires a full trial and cannot be resolved by notice of motion. The respondent has a right under section 139 of the Registration of Titles Act to lodge a caveat to protect his perceived interest as a beneficiary under the will of the parties' late father. The applicant's request for set-off against damages awarded in a related suit was premature given the pending appeal and unresolved ownership dispute.
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; applicant directed to pursue remedy through ordinary suit or await outcome of pending appeal in related matter
Facts
The applicant, Moses Makumbi, is the registered proprietor of land comprised in Block 8 Plot 864 Namirembe/Mengo. In December 2013, the respondent, Fredrick Mawejje, lodged a caveat on the land claiming an interest as a beneficiary. The applicant was constructing a three-storey commercial building which was stopped by the caveat and remains incomplete. The applicant alleged the caveat prevented him from selling the land or obtaining bank financing. The parties are biological brothers, and the respondent claims the land is part of their late father's estate. According to the will of Erieza Sebbowa Yawe, the late father purchased the property for his children but registered it in the applicant's name. The will bequeathed the property to the respondent, the applicant, and their two sisters. In related litigation (Civil Suit No. 299 of 2014), the respondent successfully sued the applicant for wrongfully lodging a caveat on different land (Block 10 Plot 917 Bukesa/Nakulabye) where the respondent was the registered proprietor. The applicant was ordered to pay damages of UGX 25,000,000 in that suit and has since appealed (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2022). The applicant brought this application seeking removal of the caveat on his land, damages for wrongful lodgment, and set-off against the damages he owes from the related suit.
Issues
- Whether the impugned caveats should be removed?
- Whether the Applicant is entitled to the remedies sought?
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.