Mukasa Anthony and Another v Dominico Mwanje and Others (Civil Suit No. 24 of 2017)

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 High Court held that letters of administration obtained using a forged certificate of no objection are null and void from inception, and all subsequent transactions based on such letters are tainted with fraud. The court declared the plaintiffs as lawful beneficiaries and owners of the suit land, revoked the fraudulently obtained letters of administration, ordered rectification of the land register to enter the plaintiffs' names, cancelled all entries in favour of the defendants, and issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the land. The 4th defendant's claim to be a bona fide purchaser for value failed due to lack of due diligence and suspicious circumstances surrounding the transaction.

Outcome

Plaintiffs declared lawful owners; fraudulent letters of administration revoked; land register to be rectified; all defendants' transactions declared null and void; permanent injunction issued; 3rd defendant to refund UGX 10,000,000/= to 4th defendant

Facts

The late Yowana Kayuki was the registered proprietor of land comprised in Gomba Block 69 Plot 7 Kanyogoga estate measuring 195.46 acres, later subdivided into Plots 8 and 9. Yowana Kayuki had one child, the late Yosefu Lubowa Malyansaka, who produced three children including the plaintiffs. The 1st defendant obtained letters of administration in 2008 using a forged certificate of no objection from the Administrator General's office, falsely claiming to be the only surviving beneficiary. Using these letters, the 1st defendant registered himself as proprietor, then rapidly transferred the land to the 2nd defendant, who transferred it to the 3rd defendant, who sold it to the 4th defendant. The plaintiffs, who are the true grandsons and beneficiaries of the late Yowana Kayuki, discovered the fraudulent dealings when the 4th defendant came onto the land in 2008 claiming ownership. The transactions were marked by suspicious circumstances including discrepancies in dates, undervaluation, lack of purchase agreements, and failure to pay full consideration.

Issues

1. Whether the 1st defendant fraudulently obtained letters of administration in respect of the estate of the late Yokana Kayuki?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are lawful owners of the suit land and beneficiaries to the estate of the late Yokana Kayuki?
3. Whether the defendants were fraudulent in their transaction in respect of the suit land?
4. Whether the 4th defendant has any claim in respect of the suit land?
5. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

• A declaration that the 1st and 3rd defendants fraudulently transferred and registered their names on the certificate of title for land comprised in Ssabaddu Block 69 Plot 8 at Kanyanya.
• A declaration that the plaintiffs are the lawful beneficiaries and owners of the suit land.
• An order for revocation of the Letters of Administration vide HCT-00-AC-606-2008 granted to the 1st defendant.
• An order directing the 5th defendant to rectify the Land Registry Book by entering the plaintiffs' names onto the certificate of title of the suit land and cancellation of all the entries on the same in favour of the 1st-4th defendants.
• An order directing the 5th defendant to remove the caveat registered under instrument No. KLA 46 2213 lodged by the 4th defendant.
• An order that all transactions by the defendants are null and void and the same should be cancelled, and the 3rd defendant refunds UGX 10,000,000/= to the 4th defendant.
• A permanent injunction against the 1st to 4th defendants, their servants, workers, agents/anyone else claiming the suit land from dealing with the suit land.
• Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Evidence Act s.101
• Evidence Act s.102
• Evidence Act s.103
• Succession Act s.230(1)
• Registration of Titles Act s.59

Cases cited (5)

• Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372
• URA v Stephen Mabosi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1995)
• Nanteza and Others v Nasani and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2013)
• Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
• Hajji Nasser Katende v Vithalidas & Co Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2003)

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