Nabagala v Mbiro (Miscellaneous Cause No. 82 of 2011)

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

Held that the respondent, as administrator of an estate with a documented agreement for sale of the suit land to the deceased estate, had a caveatable interest within the meaning of section 139 of the Registration of Titles Act. The applicant failed to rebut the respondent's evidence and did not file the affidavit in rejoinder or written submissions granted by the court. The respondent's affidavit evidence was therefore unchallenged and presumed truthful. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application to remove caveat dismissed; caveat remains on the suit land

Facts

Juliet Nabagala, executrix of the late Scholastic Nanteza (the registered proprietor of land LRV 3089 Folio 23 Kyaggwe Block 193 Plot 773), applied to remove a caveat lodged by Tereza Mbiro on 20 February 2007. The applicant contended that the respondent had no caveatable interest in the land. The respondent, administrator of the estate of the late Samuel Mukungu, averred that Mukungu had purchased the land from the former registered proprietor Richard Lwegaba under an agreement for sale before Lwegaba died. The respondent claimed that Nanteza took advantage of the situation and registered herself as transferee. The respondent had filed suit (HCCS No. 08 of 2012) against the applicant as administratrix of Nanteza's estate, and had previously filed HCCS No. 21 of 2009. The applicant's counsel requested time to file an affidavit in rejoinder and written submissions but failed to do so. The respondent moved for determination under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent has a caveatable interest in the suit land sufficient to maintain the caveat lodged under section 139 of the Registration of Titles Act.
2. Whether the applicant has discharged the burden of proving that the caveat should be removed.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Registration of Titles Act s.139
• Registration of Titles Act s.140(2)
• Registration of Titles Act s.168
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rules 1 & 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 17 rule 4

Cases cited (3)

• Tororo District Administration v Andalalapo Ltd [1977] IV KALR 126
• Samwiri Massa v Rose Achieng [1978] HCB 297
• Eridadi Ahimbisibwe v World Food Programme & Ors [1998] IV KALR 32

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