Wakilii

Nantege v Mwavu & Another (Civil Suit 981 of 2021)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 112 · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for cancellation of fraudulent title, specific performance, and damages
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with orders for specific performance (mutation and transfer of land), alternative order directing the Commissioner for Land Registration to effect the mutation, refund of fees paid to the 2nd defendant, general damages apportioned between defendants (80% and 20%), and costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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 High Court Land Division found that the 1st defendant fraudulently included the plaintiff's land (45ft by 50ft purchased in 2012) in his certificate of title for Kyadondo Block 195 Plot 5221 through the agency of the 2nd defendant surveyor, who also breached his contract with the plaintiff by failing to process her title despite receiving payment. The court ordered specific performance requiring the 1st defendant to execute mutation and transfer instruments, or alternatively directed the Commissioner for Land Registration to mutate the plaintiff's land off the 1st defendant's title. The 2nd defendant was ordered to refund fees paid, and both defendants were held jointly and severally liable for general damages.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with orders for specific performance (mutation and transfer of land), alternative order directing the Commissioner for Land Registration to effect the mutation, refund of fees paid to the 2nd defendant, general damages apportioned between defendants (80% and 20%), and costs

Facts

In 2012, the plaintiff purchased land measuring 45ft by 50ft at Kyanja from Kigonya Samuel Mukasa for UGX 4,500,000 and engaged the 2nd defendant surveyor to process a certificate of title for amalgamation with her existing land (Kyadondo Block 195 Plot 2971). Despite paying the 2nd defendant UGX 600,000, he failed to perform the services. The plaintiff later discovered in 2020 that her purchased land had been fraudulently included in a certificate of title for Kyadondo Block 195 Plot 5221 registered in the name of the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant had processed the 1st defendant's title between 2011 and 2019 while simultaneously holding instructions from the plaintiff. At a locus visit, the 1st defendant admitted the plaintiff's land was mistakenly included in his title but refused to execute the necessary transfer instruments. The vendor Kigonya confirmed he sold separate parcels to both parties and signed mutation forms in the plaintiff's favour.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendants?
  2. Whether the plaintiff's land forms part of the 1st Defendant's land situated at Block 195 Plot 5221 land at Kyanja Kyadondo County?
  3. Whether the 2nd Defendant breached the contract for service with the plaintiff when he failed to open boundaries and process a certificate of title in the names of the plaintiff as agreed?
  4. Whether the plaintiff has suffered general damages as a result of the defendants' actions or omissions?
  5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought?

Orders

  • The 1st defendant shall sign and hand over to the plaintiff well executed mutation and transfer instruments, the duplicate certificate of title for land comprised in Kyadondo Block 195 Plot 5221 at Kyanja, a pair of coloured passport photos, two copies of his endorsed National ID and his TIN, and appear before the Relevant Ministry Zonal Office (MZO) where necessary to enable the plaintiff to mutate off her piece of land and transfer the same into her names at her cost within fifteen (15) days from the date of this judgement.
  • In the alternative without prejudice to the foregoing, the Commissioner for Land Registration is hereby directed to mutate off or cause mutation of the suit land measuring 45ft by 50ft out of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 195 Plot 5221 at Kyanja, transfer the same into the names of the plaintiff and be amalgamated with the plaintiff's certificate of title comprised in Kyadondo Block 195 Plot 2971 at Kyanja at the plaintiff's cost.
  • The 2nd defendant is hereby directed to refund the sum of UGX 600,000 received from the plaintiff with interest calculated at 6% per annum from the date of receipt until payment in full.
  • The defendants shall pay UGX 10,000,000 to the plaintiff as general damages. The 1st defendant shall pay 80% and the 2nd defendant shall pay 20% of the said sums at an interest rate of 6% from the date of judgement until payment in full.
  • The defendants shall be jointly and severally liable to pay costs of this suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Fraud — Fraudulent Inclusion of Land in Certificate of Title — Registration of Titles Act s.59
Where a defendant processes a certificate of title that includes land in which he has no interest whatsoever, such conduct constitutes fraud and the indefeasibility principle under Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act cannot protect the fraudulent title.
Land & Property — Specific Performance — Duty to Execute Transfer Instruments — Fraudulent Title Holder
Where a registered proprietor is informed that his certificate of title reflects land in which he has no interest, and the inclusion was mistaken or fraudulent, the proprietor has a duty to willfully execute the requisite instruments to transfer the land to the rightful owner; refusal to do so evidences fraudulent intention.
Contract Law — Limitation of Actions — Acknowledgement Exception — Limitation Act s.23
Acknowledgement by a defendant in his witness statement that he has always been willing to execute instructions and remains willing to perform serves as an acknowledgement under Section 23 of the Limitation Act, which resets the limitation period and prevents a breach of contract claim from being barred by the six-year limitation period under Section 3.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Surveyor's Duty — Refund of Consideration
Where a surveyor receives payment to perform services, admits receiving the payment, and refuses or fails to execute the instructions given, the surveyor is liable for breach of contract and must refund the consideration advanced since he refused to perform.
Land & Property — Commissioner for Land Registration — Alternative Orders — Court's Power to Direct Mutation
Where a fraudulent title holder refuses to execute mutation and transfer instruments, the court has the power to grant an alternative order directing the Commissioner for Land Registration to effect the mutation and transfer of the land to the rightful owner.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (5)

  • Kapeeka Coffee Works Ltd v NPART (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • Auto Garage and ors vs Motokov 1971 EA
  • Zabwe Fredrick v Orient Bank and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • John Katende v Uganda Land Commission (High Court Civil Suit No. 573 of 2015)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Nantege_v_Mwavu_&_Another_(Civil_Suit_981_of_2021)_[2024]_UGHCLD_112_(30_April_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.