Wakilii

Modia Investiments (U) Limited v Sseremba and 4 Others (Civil Suit 68 of 2011)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 415 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaration of ownership, cancellation of land titles, eviction, mesne profits, damages and permanent injunction.
Decision
The court declared the plaintiff lawful proprietor, ordered cancellation of defendants' titles, granted permanent injunction, awarded mesne profits and general damages, and eviction order against defendants.

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 court held that the plaintiff's title to Plot 177 Block 208 Kyadondo, registered in 1972, took priority over the defendants' titles to Plots 1363, 2501, 2502 and 2503 registered between 1979 and 1981. The defendants' titles were fraudulently procured through double plotting and superimposition on the plaintiff's land, as they were created by unauthorized subdivision of the plaintiff's deed plan without reference to Plot 177. The court ordered cancellation of the defendants' titles, eviction, and awarded mesne profits of UGX 301,920,000 and general damages of UGX 150,000,000.

Outcome

The court declared the plaintiff lawful proprietor, ordered cancellation of defendants' titles, granted permanent injunction, awarded mesne profits and general damages, and eviction order against defendants.

Facts

The plaintiff acquired Plot 177 Block 208 Kyadondo from Kampala Financial Services Limited, a mortgagee, in 2010. When the plaintiff attempted to open boundaries in August 2010, the 1st-4th defendants resisted, claiming ownership based on their titles to Plots 1363, 2501, 2502 and 2503. The plaintiff's title was registered in 1972, while the defendants' titles were registered between 1979 and 1981. Investigation revealed the defendants' plots were created through unauthorized subdivision of the plaintiff's deed plan without reference to Plot 177. The Area Schedule showed the impugned plots were surveyed off the plaintiff's land without consent of the Commissioner Land Registration and without submission of the mother title. The plaintiff's title remained physically intact with no evidence of subdivision.

Issues

  1. Whether the certificate of title held by each of the parties is a valid certificate.
  2. Which of the parties is entitled to the suit land.
  3. Whether there has been trespass on the part of the defendants or their predecessors in title.
  4. Whether there has been fraud on the part of any of the parties or their predecessors in title.
  5. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • A declaration that the plaintiff is the lawful proprietor of Plot 177 Block 208 Kyadondo and the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants are trespassers on the suit land liable for eviction.
  • The Commissioner Land Registration is directed to cancel the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants' certificates of title comprised in Plots 1363, 2501, 2502 and 2503 Block 208, Kyadondo at Kawempe.
  • A permanent injunction issues restraining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants from further trespass on to the suit land.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded mesne profits of UGX 301,190,000 for the suit land.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 150,000,000 and costs of the suit.
  • The defendants are liable for the mesne and general damages jointly and severally.

Rules and key headnotes

Priority of Title — Registration of Titles Act — Prior Registration
Where two parties claim title to the same land and both titles are registered under the Registration of Titles Act, the certificate of title registered earlier in time takes priority over the later certificate unless the earlier registered party committed fraud in registration.
Fraud in Land Registration — Double Plotting — Superimposition
Fraud is committed where a title is created by double plotting and superimposed on another's registered land, particularly where the impugned title is created by unauthorized subdivision of the rightful owner's deed plan without consent of the Commissioner Land Registration and without affecting the mother title.
Companies — Capacity to Hold Mailo Land — Land Act Section 40
A company incorporated in Uganda whose Articles of Association contain a provision restricting transfer or issue of shares to citizens only is not a non-citizen within the meaning of Section 40 of the Land Act and has capacity to acquire and hold mailo land.
Company Resolutions — Authority to Bring Proceedings
A company resolution is not always necessary for institution of a suit in the name of a company; where a power of attorney has been granted to an advocate to sue on behalf of the company, this constitutes sufficient authority and cures any defect in the original institution of proceedings.
Bonafide Purchaser — Burden of Proof
A party pleading the defence of bonafide purchaser for value has the onus to establish it by adducing evidence of the valuable consideration given and the absence of notice of fraud; failure to testify or adduce such evidence is fatal to the defence.
Mesne Profits — Formula for Computation
Mesne profits may be computed by multiplying the capital value of land by an annual rate of 30% and by the period of unlawful occupation expressed in years, where evidence of actual rental value or land use is not available.
Preliminary Objections — Pleading and Proof
A preliminary objection need not be pleaded in the written statement of defence to be competent, but where it is not pleaded, evidence must be led regarding the intended preliminary objection to give the opposite party an opportunity to counter or rebut it.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (29)

  • Lakeside Properties v Sam Engola and 4 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 251 of 2010)
  • Rubaga Building Co. Ltd v Gopal Devsi Vekaria and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 534 of 2014)
  • Bugerere Coffee Growers Ltd v Sebaduka and Another [1970] 1 EA 147
  • Adugabo Vs Ibe C.S No. CA/B/258/2012
  • Yaya v Obur and Others (High Court Civil Appeal No. 81 of 2018)
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Tororo Cement v Frokina International Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Ann Nakanwagi v Abdu Mawejje (High Court Civil Suit No. 770 of 2016)
  • Man Kaur Vs Harta Singh JT 2010(10) SC 365 (2010)10 SCC 512
  • Danish Mercantile v Beaumont and Another [1951] Ch 680
  • Rubaga Building Co. v Virbhai Nangi Kerai (High Court Civil Suit No. 534 of 2014)
  • Navchandra Kakubhai v Kakubhai Kalides & Co. (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1994)
  • Foss v Harbottle [1843] 67 ER 189
  • United Assurance Co. Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1986)
  • Buikwe Coffee Estates and Others v Lutabi and Another [1962] EA 326
  • Production Ltd v Soon Yeon Hong and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 190 of 2008)
  • Ms Tatu Naiga & Co. Emporion v Vergee Bros Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2002)
  • Kasala Growers Co-op Society v Kakooza Jonathan and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2010)
  • St. Mark Educational Centre v Makerere University (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1997)
  • J.W.R Kazoora v M.L.S Rukuba (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1992)
  • Pilcher v Rawlings [1871-72] 7 LR Ch App 259
  • Hannigton Njuki v William Nyanzi (High Court Civil Appeal No. 434 of 1996)
  • Nana Y. Owusu & 2 Ors Vs Hydraform Estates Ltd, SCCA No.34/62/2013 [2014] GHASC 150
  • Paul Kiseka Ssaka v 7th Adventist Church (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1993)
  • Native Provincial Bank v Anisworth [1965] AC 1175
  • Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Co. Ltd [2009] 1 EA 279
  • Adrabo Stanley v Madira Jimmy (High Court Civil Suit No. 24 of 2013)
  • Painento Semalulu v Nakitto Eva Kasule (High Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2008)
  • James Bwogi & Sons Enterprises v KCC and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Modia_Investiments_(U)_Limited_v_Sseremba_and_4_Others_(Civil_Suit_68_of_2011)_[2023]_UGHCLD_415_(3_November_2023)
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.