Mohammed v Roko Construction Limited (Civil Appeal 1 of 2013)

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 held that no sale of the suit property occurred. Although the defendant produced a sale agreement and a written acknowledgement of payment, the court found these were a sham device the parties used to pressure reluctant tenants into paying rent, not a genuine transaction. The acknowledgement was not conclusive proof of payment and was rebutted; the defendant had falsified documents to manufacture evidence of payment, and powers of attorney executed as late as July 2000 confirmed the plaintiffs remained owners. The court found no genuine consideration passed and no breach by the plaintiffs, declared the plaintiffs the registered proprietors entitled to vacant possession, ordered return of the certificate of title, restrained the defendant from interfering, and awarded costs against the defendant.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiffs; plaintiffs declared registered proprietors entitled to vacant possession, certificate of title returned, defendant restrained from interfering, and costs awarded against the defendant.

Facts

The plaintiffs repossessed property at Plot 59/63 Nkokonjeru, Mbale, in July 1992; it was occupied by tenants. At the defendant's request the plaintiffs appointed him to manage the property and collect rent. The tenants proved difficult and doubted the defendant's authority, so the defendant suggested that executing a sale agreement presenting him as the new owner would simplify rent collection. The plaintiff agreed, executed a sale agreement and handed over the certificate of title, intending only to deceive the tenants; according to the plaintiffs there was no actual sale. The defendant then assumed ownership and excluded the plaintiffs from the property and its proceeds. The defendant claimed he had genuinely purchased the land on 30 April 1999 for 100 million shillings paid in installments, relying on the sale agreement and a written acknowledgement of payment. The evidence showed the defendant continued to be granted powers of attorney describing him as the plaintiffs' attorney as late as July 2000, and a handwriting expert found that a document had been falsified by copying and substitution to manufacture proof of payment toward the property.

Issues

1. Whether there was a sale of the suit property.
2. Whether the defendant paid the purchase price.
3. Whether the plaintiffs are in breach of the sale agreement.
4. What remedies are available.

Orders

• The plaintiffs, being the registered proprietors of the property, are entitled to vacant possession.
• The defendant is restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs' enjoyment of the property.
• The duplicate certificate of title is returned to the plaintiffs.
• The costs of the suit are borne by the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Cases citing this judgment (8)

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.

• Kakaire v Isabirye (HCT-03-CV-CA 1 of 2013)
• Kushaba v Commissioner Land Registration & Another (Civil Appeal 4 of 2023)
• Kushaba v Commissioner Land Registration & Another (Civil Appeal 48 of 2019)
• Sophatia & 3 Others v Nangobi & 2 Others (Civil Application 42 of 2019)
• Mabirizi Kiwanuka V The Kabaka of Buganda (Civil Application No. 0257 of 2017)
• Mohammed v Roko Construction Ltd (Miscellaneous Cause 18 of 2017)
• Mohammed v Roko Construction Ltd [2017] UGSC 13
• Crane Bank Ltd v Nipun Narottam Bhatia [2015] UGSC 16

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