Wakilii

Musiime and Another v Mubezi and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 180 of 2005)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 90 · 2022 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of land and damages arising from alleged fraudulent transfer of deceased proprietors' shares in land held as tenants in common
Decision
Plaintiff entitled to 255 hectares from his deceased father's estate; certificate of title to be issued in plaintiff's name as administrator; plaintiff to refund Ugshs. 10,000,000 to defendants within 30 days

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 High Court held that the defendants fraudulently acquired land titles to property originally held by four tenants in common, including the plaintiff's deceased father. The court found that the defendants' evidence contradicted their pleadings and contained deliberate falsehoods. The sale agreement purported to transfer all 900 hectares from only three deceased proprietors, excluding the surviving tenant in common who witnessed the transaction. The court declared the plaintiff entitled to 255 hectares from his father's estate and ordered a certificate of title to be issued in his name as administrator.

Outcome

Plaintiff entitled to 255 hectares from his deceased father's estate; certificate of title to be issued in plaintiff's name as administrator; plaintiff to refund Ugshs. 10,000,000 to defendants within 30 days

Facts

Four persons were registered as tenants in common in equal shares on 900 hectares of land in Bulemezi Block 98 Plot 4. Three proprietors died between 1981-1984 during the NRA bush war in Luwero, leaving the 1st defendant as the sole surviving proprietor. In 1988, a sale agreement was executed purportedly between the three deceased proprietors as vendors and the 2nd and 3rd defendants as purchasers for all 900 hectares, with the 1st defendant witnessing the agreement. The defendants subsequently obtained separate certificates of title. The plaintiffs, sons of two deceased proprietors, obtained letters of administration for their fathers' estates in 2000 and 2004 and filed suit in 2005 to recover the land. The 1st plaintiff had previously entered into a consent judgment for Ugshs. 10,000,000 which was later set aside. The 2nd plaintiff had already obtained judgment in his favour, which was upheld on appeal to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. This judgment concerned only the 1st plaintiff's claim.

Issues

  1. Whether the transaction of the Defendants on the initial suit land (Bulemezi Block 98 Plot 4/LRV 1482 Folio 7) was fraudulent and illegal.
  2. Whether the Plaintiff has a cause of action against the 3rd Defendant when the 3rd Defendant purchased from the estate of the late Gerosome Rwakishaya.
  3. Whether the Plaintiff can maintain a suit against the Defendants when he was paid Ugshs. 10,000,000 in settlement of the matter.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • A declaration that the Defendants fraudulently acquired for themselves certificates of land titles arising out of formerly Plot 4 Bulemezi Block 981 partly belonging to the 1st Plaintiff's deceased father's estate.
  • A declaration that the 1st Plaintiff, as Administrator of his father's estate, is entitled to 255 out of 900 hectares formerly in Bulemezi 981 Plot 4 and now to be curved out of the 2nd and 3rd Defendant's Plots 16 and 17 respectively.
  • A certificate of title in the name of the 1st Plaintiff, as Administrator of the estate of the late Zekyeri Lubenika, be prepared and issued by the Registrar of Titles from the sub-division of Plots 16 and 17.
  • The 1st Plaintiff to refund to the Defendants Ugshs. 10,000,000 received by him within 30 days of this judgment.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the 1st Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Parties Bound by Pleadings — Evidence Contradicting Pleadings
Parties in civil matters are bound by what they state in their pleadings, and no party can be allowed to depart from its pleadings. Evidence given in departure of pleadings is tantamount to a falsehood and attracts strong suspicion, leading to rejection of such evidence.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Test for Disclosure
A cause of action is disclosed where the plaint shows that the plaintiff enjoyed a right, that the right has been violated, and that the defendant is liable. In determining whether a cause of action exists, the court looks only at the plaint and its annexures, not at evidence.
Land & Property — Fraud — Tenancy in Common — Sale by Deceased Proprietors
Where land is held by tenants in common in equal shares and a purported sale agreement transfers the entire property from only some of the deceased tenants in common while excluding a surviving tenant in common who merely witnesses the transaction, such circumstances constitute prima facie fraud.
Evidence — Credibility of Witnesses — Deliberate Falsehoods
Deliberate falsehoods in a witness's testimony lead to rejection of the entire evidence of that witness.
Land & Property — Remedies — Consequential Relief — Registration of Titles Act
Where fraud in acquisition of land titles is established, the court may grant consequential reliefs under sections 176(c) and 177 of the Registration of Titles Act, including declarations of entitlement and orders for issuance of certificates of title, regardless of whether such reliefs are specifically pleaded.
Civil Procedure — Consent Judgment — Effect of Setting Aside
Where a consent judgment is set aside by court order, the original claim resurfaces and can be maintained, notwithstanding that money was paid pursuant to the consent judgment and has not been refunded.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (9)

  • Kapeka Coffee Works Ltd v NPART (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Jani Properties Ltd v Dar-es-Salaam City Council [1966] EA 281
  • Struggle Ltd v Pan African Insurance Co. Ltd (1990) ALR 46
  • Semalulu v Nakitto (High Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2008)
  • Kasifa Namusisi & Others v MK Ntabazi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2005)
  • Akisoferi W. Biteremo v Damascus Munyanda Situma (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1991)
  • Odur David v Ocaya Alphonse & 3 Others (High Court Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2018)
  • Fredrick J.K. Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd and 5 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2005)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Musiime_and_Another_v_Mubezi_and_2_Others_(Civil_Suit_No._180_of_2005)_[2022]_UGHCLD_90_(30_March_2022)
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.