Wakilii

Nakabuye v Strokes & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 38 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 319 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for removal of caveats lodged on applicant's registered land title
Decision
Caveats removed from applicant's land title

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 8 (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 8 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations steady — 8 citing cases on record, 4 in the most recent three data years. 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 court held that caveats lodged by respondents on the applicant's registered land title should be removed where the caveators failed to take positive steps to resolve the underlying dispute for six and ten years respectively. A power of attorney granted by administrators of an estate is null and void as administrators have no power to delegate their mandate. A caveat lodged by a beneficiary claiming under an estate (but not under a will or settlement) can lapse under Section 140(2) of the Registration of Titles Act. The court has power under Section 140(1) to order removal of any caveat, including a beneficiary's caveat, where the caveator fails to show cause.

Outcome

Caveats removed from applicant's land title

Facts

The applicant, Nakabuye Agnes, is the registered proprietor of land comprised in Block 249 Plot 1103 at Bunga. The 1st respondent lodged a caveat on the land on 18 January 2016, and the 2nd respondent lodged a caveat on 4 August 2011. The 1st respondent claimed to hold powers of attorney from the administrators of the estate of the late Charles Kasaja Stokes and also claimed to be a beneficiary of that estate. The 2nd respondent died in 2012. The respondents lodged complaints with the Police, Ministry of Lands, Commissioner for Land Registration, and Land Commissioner alleging fraudulent acquisition of the land by the applicant, but never instituted proceedings in the High Court. Six and ten years respectively passed since the caveats were lodged without the respondents taking steps to have the controversy determined by a competent court.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondents have cause why their caveats should not be removed
  2. Whether the Respondents' caveats should be removed

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • An order directing the Commissioner for Land Registration to remove the caveats lodged by the Respondents on land comprised in Block 249 Plot 1103, at Bunga.
  • An order that the 1st Respondent pays 50% of the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Caveats — Removal — Failure to Prosecute Underlying Claim
The primary objective of a caveat is to give the caveator temporary protection. It is not the intention of the law that the caveator should relax and sit back for eternity without taking positive steps to handle the controversy so as to determine the rights of the parties affected by its existence. Where caveators have lodged caveats for six and ten years respectively without taking any step to have the controversy settled by a competent court, they have abused the temporary protection afforded by the caveats and the caveats should be removed.
Land & Property — Caveats — Caveatable Interest — Power of Attorney from Administrator
An administrator has no power to delegate his or her mandate. A power of attorney allegedly given by administrators of an estate to a third party is null and void. A person holding such a power of attorney acquires no interest in land forming part of the estate and therefore has no caveatable interest to support a caveat.
Land & Property — Caveats — Beneficiary's Caveat — Lapse and Removal
Under Section 140(2) of the Registration of Titles Act, a caveat lodged by or on behalf of a beneficiary claiming under any will or settlement cannot lapse. However, a caveat lodged by a beneficiary of an estate where the beneficial interest does not accrue from a will or settlement is not excepted from lapsing and can lapse upon the expiration of sixty days after notice. Further, the court has power under Section 140(1) to order the removal of any caveat, including a beneficiary's caveat, where the caveator fails to show cause why it should not be removed.
Statutory Interpretation — Registration of Titles Act — Distinction Between 'Lapse' and 'Removal' of Caveats
The term 'lapsed' as used in Section 140(2) of the Registration of Titles Act means that the caveator's right to protection by the caveat has terminated through neglect or failure to exercise it within sixty days after notice. The term 'removed' as used in Section 140(1) means to get rid of the caveat by court order. Whereas a caveat lodged by a beneficiary claiming under a will or settlement cannot lapse, it can be removed upon an order of court under Section 140(1).
Civil Procedure — Misnomer — Amendment of Party Name
Where a wrong description of a party is a misnomer, it is not fatal, especially if the substance of identities of the parties to the proceedings is not affected. A misnomer in naming a defendant can be corrected by amendment under Order 1 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which will relate back to the date of the original pleading.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (6)

  • Attorney General v Sabric Building and Decorating Contractors Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 299 of 2012)
  • Segirinya Gerald v Mutebi Innocent (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 081 of 2016)
  • Sentongo Produce & Coffee Farmers Ltd v Rose Nakafuma Muyiise (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 690 of 1999)
  • Hunter Investments Ltd v Lwanyanga & Anor (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 0034 of 2012)
  • Re: Estate of Krishan Murti Maini (Deceased) [2011] Eklr
  • Kampala Financial Services v Commissioner for Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 149 of 2020)

Cases citing this judgment (8)

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.

Nakabuye_v_Strokes_&_Another_(Miscellaneous_Cause_38_of_2021)_[2022]_UGHCLD_319_(27_January_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.