Wakilii

Meera Investiments Limited v Commisssioner Land Registration and Another (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 365 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGHCLD 127 · 2021 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to maintain caveats on suit properties arising from Civil Suit No. 948 of 2017
Decision
Caveats maintained pending determination of the main suit

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

Held that an application to maintain a running caveat threatened with removal does not fall under Section 140(3) of the Registration of Titles Act, which applies only to renewal of expired caveats. The court has inherent jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Judicature Act and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to maintain caveats where necessary to preserve the status quo pending determination of the main suit. The application was not res judicata as it arose from a different cause of action and sought different relief from the earlier temporary injunction application. Application granted.

Outcome

Caveats maintained pending determination of the main suit

Facts

The applicant, Meera Investments Limited, is the mailo/freehold owner and lessor of numerous properties across Uganda. In 2017, these properties were transferred to DFCU Bank Limited (the 2nd respondent) by the Bank of Uganda without the applicant's consent as lessor. The applicant challenged this transfer in H.C.C.S No. 948 of 2017. In 2019, the hearing of that suit was stayed pending an appeal. The applicant lodged caveats on all the suit properties in August 2019. In February 2021, the 2nd respondent applied to the Commissioner Land Registration (1st respondent) to remove the caveats. The 1st respondent issued notices to the applicant indicating intention to vacate the caveats within 60 days unless a court order maintaining them was obtained. The applicant then filed this application seeking orders to maintain the caveats pending determination of the main suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was brought under the proper law.
  2. Whether the application is barred by res judicata or amounts to an abuse of court process.
  3. Whether the applicant's caveats on the suit properties should be maintained pending determination of the main suit.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Respondents restrained from vacating or otherwise removing the applicant's caveats registered on the suit properties.
  • First respondent directed to maintain the applicant's caveats on the suit properties until determination of the main suit.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Caveats — Maintenance of Running Caveats — Distinction from Renewal of Expired Caveats
Section 140(3) of the Registration of Titles Act applies only to renewal of expired caveats and does not apply to situations where a party seeks to maintain a running caveat that is threatened with removal before its expiry.
Inherent Jurisdiction — Application to Maintain Caveats — Proper Legal Basis
Where a running caveat is threatened with removal and the circumstances do not fall within Section 140(3) of the Registration of Titles Act, the court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Judicature Act and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to maintain the caveat pending determination of the main suit.
Res Judicata — Different Causes of Action — Temporary Injunction versus Maintenance of Caveats
An application to maintain caveats is not res judicata merely because an earlier application for a temporary injunction between the same parties concerning the same properties was dismissed, where the cause of action for the caveat application arose after the earlier ruling and the principles applicable to temporary injunctions are distinct from those for maintaining caveats.
Caveats — Proof of Existence — Admission by Opposing Party
Where a party applies to have caveats removed and the Commissioner Land Registration issues notices to vacate those caveats, the existence of the caveats is sufficiently established without the need to attach copies of the caveats to the application to maintain them, particularly where the opposing party does not dispute their existence.
Preservation of Status Quo — Pending Litigation — Maintenance of Caveats
Where a suit challenging the legality of a transfer of properties is pending and stayed pending appeal, the interests of justice require that the status quo be maintained by preserving caveats on the suit properties until final determination of the parties' rights, and it is contemptuous for a party to attempt to deal with or change the status quo of suit land while the dispute is ongoing.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (10)

  • In the matter of Joseph Muluuta (Miscellaneous Application No. 500 of 1995)
  • Jack Wavamunno v Gordon Wavamunno (Miscellaneous Cause No. 19 of 2011)
  • Amrit Goya v Hari Chand Goya (H.C.C.S No. 432 of 2011)
  • Pharmaceutical Society of Uganda v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 260 of 2019)
  • Taparu Roitei [1968] E.A 618
  • Mohamed and Another v Haidara (1972) E.A 166
  • Adam Namadowa and 6 Others v Hakim Kawaidhanako and 3 Others (H.C.C.S No. 100 of 2012)
  • Hunter Investments Limited v Simon Lwanyanga and Another (H.C.M.A No. 0034 of 2012)
  • Babigumira v Magezi (H.C.M.A No. 538 of 2013)
  • H.C.M.A No. 1556 of 2019

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Meera_Investiments_Limited_v_Commisssioner_Land_Registration_and_Another_(Civil_Miscellaneous_Application_No._365_of_2021)_[2021]_UGHCLD_127_(28_June_2021)
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.