Muwonge v Kizito & Another (Civil Suit 862 of 2018)
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
Held that a memorandum of understanding executed between a lessee whose lease had expired and a beneficiary of the lessor's estate created a binding contract recognizing the lessee's equitable interest in land. The beneficiary could not sell the entire property in disregard of that interest. The purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice where he visited the land, saw developments, knew of the plaintiff's occupation, and offered settlement money to the plaintiff's family before completing the purchase.
Outcome
Plaintiff's estate declared to have an interest in the suit land; 2nd defendant's registration cancelled; permanent injunction granted; general damages and costs awarded to plaintiff
Facts
On 1 March 1971, Erimiya Male leased land to the plaintiff for 20 years and later offered to sell the reversionary interest. The plaintiff lost the transfer forms during the Amin war, and Erimiya died before replacement forms were secured. On 16 September 2010, the plaintiff entered a memorandum of understanding with the 1st defendant (Erimiya's beneficiary) to subdivide the land, with part going to the 1st defendant in exchange for help transferring the balance into the plaintiff's name. The Administrator General transferred the land into the 1st defendant's name. The 1st defendant then sold the entire property to the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant visited the land before purchase, saw houses occupied by the plaintiff's family, was told of the plaintiff's interest by the 1st defendant, and offered UGX 100 million to the plaintiff's family for settlement. The plaintiff brought suit claiming an interest in the land and seeking cancellation of the 2nd defendant's registration.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff has any interest in the suit land?
- Whether the 1st defendant has capacity to sell the suit land to the 2nd defendant?
- Whether the 2nd defendant is a bonafide purchaser of the suit land without constructive notice of the plaintiff's interest therein?
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- A declaration that the plaintiff (now his estate) has an interest in land as stipulated in the memorandum of understanding measuring approximately 92 ft in the land comprised in Kibuga Block 29 Plot 545 at Kanjokya.
- An order directing the Commissioner Land Registration to cancel the special certificate of title issued in respect of Land comprised in Kibuga Block 29 Plot 545 and maintain the Duplicate Certificate of title.
- A declaration that the 2nd defendant is not a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of land comprised in Kibuga Block 29 Plot 545 at Kanjokya.
- An order for cancellation of the registration of the 2nd defendant as the registered proprietor on the Certificate of title of land comprised Kibuga Block 29 Plot 545 at Kanjokya.
- An order directing the 1st defendant to execute mutation and transfer forms and hand over the same to the administrators of the estate of the Late Hajji Muhammad Muwonge to enable them mutate off the interest as stated in (i) above in the names of the Administrators of the estate.
- An order for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from further laying any claim and/or trespass on the late Hajji Muhammad's land.
- The 2nd defendant is at liberty to regularize his purchase with the 1st defendant exclusive of the plaintiff's interest as herein declared.
- General damages of UGX 15,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff payable by the defendants jointly at an interest rate of 10% p.a from the date of this judgement until payment in full.
- The defendants jointly and severally pay the costs of the suit.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
- Rent Restriction Act Cap 231 s.6
- Civil Procedure Act s.27(2)
Cases cited (11)
- Olanya Hannington v Acullu Hellen (Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2016)
- National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth (1965)
- Bps Construction & Engineering Company Limited v Federal Capital Development Authority (2017) LLJR SC
- L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394
- Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB
- Olanya v Acullu (Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2016)
- Printing and Numeral Registering Company v Sampson (1875) L.R Eq 462
- Dr Diana Kazira v Rwanchwede and Another (Civil Appeal No. 81 of 2020)
- Amratlal Purshottam & Another v Gian Singh Bhambra (H.C.C.S. No. 289 of 2010)
- Obina and 6 Others v Okumu and Others (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2018)
- Hunt v Luck (1901) 1 Ch 45
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.