Wakilii

Muyambi Simon v Attorney General and Anor (Miscellaneous Cause No. 155 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCLD 80 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by Notice of Motion for vesting order and certificate of purchase relating to property purchased from Departed Asian Property Custodian Board
Decision
Application dismissed for failure to satisfy statutory conditions and procedural defects

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 dismissed the application for a vesting order and certificate of purchase. The applicant failed to satisfy the statutory conditions under Section 167 of the Registration of Titles Act, particularly failing to prove the full purchase price and that the vendor could not be found. The court also held that the proper procedure for obtaining a certificate of purchase required filing an ordinary plaint, not an application by notice of motion.

Outcome

Application dismissed for failure to satisfy statutory conditions and procedural defects

Facts

The applicant purchased property at Plot 37, Martin Road LRV 116, Folio 7 from the Departed Asian Property Custodian Board under MIN 14: DAPCB/2017. The applicant paid UGX 162,000,000 in two instalments in January and November 2018, as evidenced by receipts. The applicant took possession of the property. Three years after purchase, the Attorney General had not issued a certificate of purchase despite several demands. The applicant sought a vesting order and certificate of purchase to enable transfer and development of the property. The second respondent (Commissioner Land Registration) was not served with the application.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions under Section 167 of the Registration of Titles Act for the grant of a vesting order.
  2. Whether a certificate of purchase should be issued by the Attorney General.
  3. Whether the appropriate procedure was followed in bringing the application.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Vesting Orders — Conditions under Registration of Titles Act Section 167
For a vesting order to be granted under Section 167 of the Registration of Titles Act, four conditions must be satisfied: the land must be registered under the Registration of Titles Act and the purchaser must have paid the whole purchase price; the purchaser or those claiming under him must have taken possession; the vendor or his representative must have acquiesced to the possession; and the vendor must be dead, residing out of jurisdiction, or cannot be found.
Vesting Orders — Proof of Purchase Price
Evidence of payment alone is insufficient to establish that the full purchase price has been paid where the agreement or assessment showing the total purchase price is not produced.
Vesting Orders — Availability of Vendor
A vesting order cannot be granted where the vendor, the Departed Asian Property Custodian Board operating under the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, is available and can be located through the Attorney General.
Certificate of Purchase — Proper Procedure
The proper procedure for obtaining a certificate of purchase from the Departed Asian Property Custodian Board is by filing an ordinary plaint against the Attorney General and leading evidence of the transaction, not by application by notice of motion supported by affidavit.
Service of Process — Effect of Non-Service on Co-Respondent
Where an application names multiple respondents but one respondent is not served at all, the proceedings are defective as to the unserved respondent.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (1)

  • Aida Najjemba v Ester Mpagi (Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Muyambi_Simon_v_Attorney_General_and_Anor_(Miscellaneous_Cause_No._155_of_2020)_[2021]_UGHCLD_80_(27_April_2021)
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.