Wakilii

Nakasawe (suing through her lawful attorney Rwemityaza and ka kye) v Commissioner Land Registration and 7 Others (Civil Suit 96 of 2016)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 247 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaration of fraudulent registration, cancellation of title, and eviction of illegal occupants
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with orders for cancellation of fraudulent registration, entry of plaintiff as administratrix, and eviction of illegal occupants

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 High Court held that Daudi Tebyasa sold only 20 decimals to Mika Kagingo, not the entire 640.20 acres, as no sale agreement existed for the larger parcel. The Registrar of Titles wrongfully registered the Administrator General while a subsisting caveat remained on the title. The 3rd to 8th defendants were found to have no legitimate interest as bonafide occupants and were illegal occupants. The court ordered cancellation of the 2nd defendant's registration, entry of the plaintiff as administratrix, and eviction of the 5th to 8th defendants.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with orders for cancellation of fraudulent registration, entry of plaintiff as administratrix, and eviction of illegal occupants

Facts

The plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of Daudi Tebyasa (who died in 1942), sued for a declaration that the 2nd defendant's registration as administrator of Mika Kagingo's estate on Gomba Block 6 Plot 1 (640 acres) was fraudulent. The plaintiff contended that her grandfather sold only 20 decimals to Mika Kagingo in 1928, not the entire 640.20 acres. The defendants claimed that Daudi Tebyasa sold the entire parcel to Mika Kagingo in 1912 and an additional 20 decimals in 1928. The plaintiff lodged a caveat on the title in 2002. The 2nd defendant was registered as administrator in 2007 despite the subsisting caveat. The 3rd and 4th defendants were convicted of forgery in a prior criminal case. The 5th to 8th defendants claimed to be bonafide occupants, with the 5th defendant allegedly purchasing 400 acres from the 3rd and 4th defendants, though no sale agreement was produced.

Issues

  1. Whether Daudi Tebyasa sold his entire 640.20 acres to Mika Kagingo or just 20 decimals (0.20 acres)?
  2. Whether the Registrar of Titles was justified in entering the Administrator General on the certificate of title when the plaintiff had already lodged a caveat thereon?
  3. Whether the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th defendants have interest in the suit land?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • A declaration that the registration of the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant as administrator of the estate of late Mika Kagingo on land comprised in Gomba Block 6 plot 1 land at Kasambya was done fraudulently.
  • An order for cancellation of the name of the 2nd defendant from the special certificate of title at Gomba Block 6 Plot 1 land at Kasambya measuring 640 acres.
  • An order for entry of the plaintiff as the administratrix to the estate of Daudi Tebyasa on land comprised in Gomba Block 6, plot 1 land at Kasambya measuring 640 acres.
  • An eviction order against the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th defendants as illegal occupants on the suit land.
  • Costs of the suit to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Land Transactions — Proof of Sale — Requirement for Sale Agreement
A claim that land was sold must be supported by a sale agreement or other documentary evidence; oral testimony alone is insufficient to prove transfer of title to land, particularly where the alleged sale predates registration of the seller as proprietor.
Registration of Titles — Torrens System — Indefeasibility Subject to Fraud
Under the Torrens system, the register is conclusive evidence of ownership except in cases of actual fraud; where registration is procured through fraud, the title is not indefeasible and may be impeached.
Caveats — Effect of Subsisting Caveat on Registration
Where a caveat remains in force, the Registrar of Titles shall not enter any change in proprietorship or register any transfer except in accordance with the caveat or with the written consent of the caveator; registration effected in breach of a subsisting caveat is wrongful.
Res Judicata — Criminal Proceedings — Ownership Determination
A criminal court trying offences of forgery and uttering false documents has no jurisdiction to determine ownership rights in land; findings on ownership in such proceedings do not create res judicata in subsequent civil proceedings between the same parties.
Bonafide Occupancy — Proof of Lawful Occupation
A claim to bonafide occupancy under the Land Act must be supported by evidence of lawful occupation in accordance with customary or statutory requirements; mere physical presence on land without proof of compliance with applicable law does not establish bonafide occupancy.
Limitation — Commencement of Limitation Period — Knowledge of Fraud
The limitation period under the Limitation Act begins to run from the date when the right of action accrued to the plaintiff; where fraud is alleged, time runs from when the plaintiff discovered or ought reasonably to have discovered the fraud, not from the date of the fraudulent act itself.
Documentary Evidence — Authenticity of Old Documents — Section 90 Evidence Act
While documents over 30 years old may be presumed authentic under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, such presumption is rebuttable and does not dispense with the requirement to prove the transaction the document purports to evidence, particularly where the document contains internal inconsistencies or contradicts other reliable evidence.

Legislation cited (20)

Cases cited (19)

  • General Industries (U) Limited v Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust and 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2007)
  • Paulo Kawesa v Administrator General (High Court Civil Suit No. 918 of 1993)
  • Dominic Waburoko v Nataka Michael Richard (High Court Civil Suit No. 21 of 2015)
  • Maria Ciabaitaru M'mairanyi and Others v. Blue Shield Insurance Company Limited, 2000 [2005]1 E.A 280
  • F.X. Miramago v. Attorney General [1979] HCB 24
  • Henderson v. Henderson 3 Hare 114
  • Attorney General v Henley Property Developers Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 421 of 2021)
  • David Sejjaaka Nalima v Rebecca Musoke (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1985)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Aziz Kalungi Kasujja v Naune Tebekanya Nakakande (Civil Appeal No. 63 of 1998)
  • Sentongo Produce V Coffee Farmers Limited & Anor vs Rose Nakafuma Muyiisa HCMC 690/99
  • Annet Zimbiha v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 109 of 2011)
  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 13 of 1993)
  • Erukan Kuwe v Isaac Patrick Matovu and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 177 of 2003)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v. Kigozi [2002] 1 EA. 305
  • Charles Acire v Myaana Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Madhvani International S.A v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2010)
  • Ramanathapuram Market V East India Corporation Ltd AIR 1976 Mad 323, (1975) 2 MLJ 214

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakasawe_(suing_through_her_lawful_attorney_Rwemityaza_and_ka_kye)_v_Commissioner_Land_Registration_and_7_Others_(Civil_Suit_96_of_2016)_[2023]_UGHCLD_247_(17_January_2023)
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.