Wakilii

Namazzi Justine v Niwagaba Alikadi Julius and Another (Originating Summons No. 3 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 324 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Originating summons for a vesting order under the Registration of Titles Act
Decision
Application for vesting order dismissed with costs to the 2nd respondent

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

Application for vesting order dismissed. The court held that the applicant failed to satisfy the statutory conditions under Section 167 of the Registration of Titles Act, particularly the requirement that the vendor cannot be located. Evidence established that the vendor was available and could be contacted. The court also found that the applicant failed to prove actual possession of the land and had not adduced documentary evidence of first approaching the Commissioner Land Registration as required by the procedural directives of Section 167.

Outcome

Application for vesting order dismissed with costs to the 2nd respondent

Facts

The applicant claimed she purchased land from the 1st respondent in 2012 for UGX 280,000,000 under a sale agreement. She alleged that after paying in full and taking possession, she received the duplicate certificate of title and signed transfer forms, which she subsequently misplaced. She further alleged that the 1st respondent could not be located to provide fresh transfer forms and his telephone number was permanently switched off. On the court's direction, the court process server called the 1st respondent's telephone number and confirmed it was active, and the 1st respondent confirmed he knew the applicant. The applicant had not recorded any formal police complaint about the misplaced transfer forms despite the 12-year lapse. The court found insufficient evidence of actual possession, with only photographs showing scattered banana plants and bushy land.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was brought using the correct procedure under Section 167 of the Registration of Titles Act.
  2. Whether the applicant first applied to the Commissioner Land Registration for a vesting order before invoking the High Court's jurisdiction.
  3. Whether the application disclosed grounds justifying the grant of a vesting order to the applicant.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs to the 2nd respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Vesting Orders — Procedural Prerequisites — Application to Commissioner Land Registration
Section 167 of the Registration of Titles Act makes it a procedural prerequisite in applications for vesting orders that an applicant must first apply to the Commissioner Land Registration before invoking the original jurisdiction of the High Court, notwithstanding the High Court's unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139(1) of the Constitution.
Vesting Orders — Statutory Conditions — Vendor Cannot Be Located
For a vesting order to be granted under Section 167 of the Registration of Titles Act, the applicant must prove that the transfer cannot be obtained because the vendor is dead, residing outside the jurisdiction, or cannot be found. Where evidence establishes that the vendor is available and can be contacted on a known telephone number, this condition is not satisfied.
Vesting Orders — Proof of Possession
An applicant for a vesting order must prove actual possession of the suit land. Photographs showing scattered banana plants on bushy land, without evidence of the projects allegedly being conducted, are insufficient to prove actual possession.
Documentary Evidence — Procedural Compliance
Where an applicant deposes that she approached the Commissioner Land Registration for a vesting order and was denied, but attaches no documentary evidence to prove this deposition, the court may find that the procedural prerequisite of first applying to the Commissioner has not been satisfied.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (4)

  • Ronald Oine v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 90 of 2013)
  • Aida Najjemba v Ester Mpagi (Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2005)
  • Mutyaba Tom v James Kayimbye Sebinene Musajjalumbwa (Miscellaneous Cause No. 40 of 2018)
  • Maria Goretti Musimenta v Commissioner for Land Registration (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 62 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Namazzi_Justine_v_Niwagaba_Alikadi_Julius_and_Another_(Originating_Summons_No._3_of_2023)_[2024]_UGHCLD_324_(14_March_2024)
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.