Mayimuna v Metropolitan Properties Limited (Civil Appeal 180 of 2015)

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial court erred in ordering cancellation of the appellant's title without properly investigating when and how the certificate of title was created and transferred. The respondent failed to prove, by mere letters attached to its written statement of defence, that the Uganda Land Commission had not transferred the suit property to the appellant. As a citizen, the appellant was entitled to hold a freehold interest, only non-citizens being barred by Article 237(2)(c) of the Constitution and section 40(4) of the Land Act. The Court reversed the trial court's orders, directed reinstatement of the appellant as registered proprietor, and restored the freehold status of the property.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; trial court orders reversed and appellant reinstated as registered proprietor with freehold status restored

Facts

The dispute concerned land comprised in Freehold Register Volume 210 Folio 11 at Mbuya, registered in the appellant's name. There was contention over the actual year in which the appellant's certificate of title was created or issued (whether 1962 or 1993) and the manner in which the title was transferred into her name, including whether the Uganda Land Commission effected the transfer. The respondent claimed that the Uganda Land Commission had not transferred the suit property to the appellant, relying on letters attached to its written statement of defence. The trial court, by a ruling delivered on 23 December 2011, ordered cancellation of the appellant's certificate of title. The appellant, being a citizen of Uganda, was in law entitled to hold an interest in freehold or mailo land, only non-citizens being barred. The matter was between close family members.

Issues

1. Whether the appellant's certificate of title should be cancelled and reinstated to its freehold status.
2. Whether the respondent proved that the Uganda Land Commission did not transfer the suit property to the appellant.
3. Whether the trial court properly investigated the circumstances under which the appellant acquired the title.

Orders

• The Appeal is allowed.
• The Ruling and all Orders of the trial court delivered on 23rd December 2011 are reversed and set aside.
• The order for cancellation of the appellant's title for land comprised in Freehold Register Volume 210 Folio 11 at Mbuya and all entries thereon is set aside.
• The Commissioner Land Registration is ordered to reinstate the appellant as the registered proprietor.
• The suit property should be reinstated onto its freehold status.
• The judgment and Orders of the trial court are set aside.
• Each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal and in the court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 237(2)(c)
• Land Act 1998 s.40(4)

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