Wakilii

Mureeba Charles and 2 Others v Nalwanga Mary (Miscellaneous Application 2399 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 252 · 2026 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Sections 124(1) & 126 of the Registration of Titles Act for removal of caveat and compensation, arising from Civil Suit No. 1190 of 2021
Decision
Application partly allowed. Court found Respondent lacked caveatable interest but dismissed compensation claim for failure to strictly prove special damages. Caveat already withdrawn before determination.

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 a caveat may only be lodged by a person possessing a legal or equitable interest in land under Section 123 of the Registration of Titles Act. The Respondent's claim for damages arising from alleged trespass in a pending civil suit did not create a proprietary interest capable of supporting a caveat. Parties cannot by agreement create a caveatable interest where none exists under statute. The court found that the Respondent lacked any caveatable interest in either plot and that the temporary arrangement between the parties did not confer proprietary rights. The application succeeded on the question of caveatable interest but the claim for special damages failed for want of strict proof.

Outcome

Application partly allowed. Court found Respondent lacked caveatable interest but dismissed compensation claim for failure to strictly prove special damages. Caveat already withdrawn before determination.

Facts

The Applicants are defendants in Civil Suit No. 1190 of 2021 in which the Respondent alleges trespass on her land comprised in Kyadondo Block 194 Plot 2198. During the pendency of that suit, the Respondent lodged a caveat on the Applicants' land comprised in Kyadondo Block 194 Plot 2714. The caveat disrupted the Applicants' property business. Following negotiations on 8 June 2022, the parties agreed to withdraw the caveat from Plot 2714 and maintain it on Plot 2713 as an interim arrangement. The Applicants allege that in 2024 a buyer offered UGX 120,000,000 for Plot 2713 but reduced the offer to UGX 85,000,000 upon discovering the caveat, causing financial loss. The Applicants approached the Respondent to remove the caveat but she declined. The Applicants sold the land at the reduced price and subsequently brought this application seeking removal of the caveat and compensation. The Respondent withdrew the caveat after the application was filed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent had any caveatable interest in Kyadondo Block 194 Plot 2714 or Kyadondo Block 194 Plot 2713 situated at Kungu.
  2. Whether the application is incurably incompetent for being supported by a defective affidavit.
  3. Whether the 2nd and 3rd Applicants have locus standi to bring this application.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Respondent did not possess any caveatable interest in either Kyadondo Block 194 Plot 2713 or Kyadondo Block 194 Plot 2714.
  • The prayer for release of the caveat lodged under Instrument No. WKY-00295826 is declined as the caveat had already been withdrawn before determination of the application.
  • The Applicants' claim for UGX 50,000,000 compensation is dismissed since the alleged financial loss and damages were not strictly proved.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Caveats — Caveatable Interest — Legal and Equitable Interests
A caveat may only be lodged by a person claiming an estate or interest in land under Section 123(1) of the Registration of Titles Act. The existence of a recognizable legal or equitable interest is a prerequisite to the valid lodgment of a caveat.
Caveats — Personal Claims — Claim for Damages Not a Proprietary Interest
A caveat is intended to protect an existing proprietary interest and not merely a personal claim. A claim for damages arising from trespass in a pending civil suit does not amount to an interest in land capable of supporting a caveat. Concern regarding the possible enforcement of a future judgment does not create a proprietary interest.
Caveats — Agreement Between Parties — Cannot Create Interest Where None Exists
Parties cannot by agreement create a caveatable interest where none exists under statute. The availability of a caveat depends upon the existence of a legal or equitable interest recognised by the Registration of Titles Act. Temporary consent to the maintenance of a caveat does not convert a personal claim for damages into a proprietary interest in land.
Affidavit Evidence — Competence — Joint Applicants
Where several persons sue jointly and the relevant facts are within the common knowledge of parties having the same interest in the litigation, an affidavit sworn by one of them will suffice. There is no rule requiring written authority from co-applicants for one applicant to swear an affidavit in support of a joint application where the facts deponed to are within the deponent's personal knowledge.
Locus Standi — Equitable Owners — Interest in Subject Matter
Locus standi refers to the right of a party to appear and be heard before court. The determining factor is whether the party has a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the proceedings. Equitable owners of land have sufficient interest to bring an application for removal of a caveat under Section 124(1) of the Registration of Titles Act which permits not only a registered proprietor but also any person claiming under the proprietor to summon a caveator to show cause.
Special Damages — Burden of Proof — Strict Proof Required
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. A party claiming financial loss must produce cogent documentary evidence establishing the loss and demonstrating a direct causal link to the impugned act. In the absence of such evidence, the court cannot quantify the claimed loss.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (12)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mureeba Charles and 2 Others v Nalwanga Mary (Miscellaneous Application 2399 of 2025) [2026] UGHCLD 252 (10 June 2026)
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.