Wakilii

Nantongo v Sserubidde & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 19 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 83 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to vacate caveat lodged on applicant's registered land
Decision
Caveat vacated; application granted with costs to the applicant

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 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 High Court held that respondents had no caveatable interest in land comprised in Busiro Block 411 Plot 396 where they lodged a caveat, as they failed to prove their claim that the plot was carved from their grandfather's estate plots 42 or 43. The caveat was vacated. The court declined to award compensation for lack of evidence of specific damage beyond legal fees, which were recoverable as costs under the general principle that costs follow the event.

Outcome

Caveat vacated; application granted with costs to the applicant

Facts

The applicant was the registered proprietor of land comprised in Busiro Block 411 Plot 396 at Sisa, which she traced through family inheritance dating to 1952. In 2016, she obtained a registrable interest from the landlord in exchange for four acres and was issued a certificate of title in 2022. The respondents, claiming as beneficiaries of the estate of the late Godfrey Kasujja, lodged a caveat asserting that Plot 396 was carved from Plot 43 (or Plot 42), which formed part of their grandfather Musa Lukusa's estate. The respondents provided no evidence to support their claim that Plot 396 was derived from either Plot 42 or 43. The applicant sought removal of the caveat and compensation.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents had any legal or equitable interest in the applicant's land entitling them to lodge a caveat
  2. Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation or damages from the respondents for lodging a caveat without reasonable cause
  3. Whether the applicant is entitled to costs

Orders

  • The caveat lodged by the Respondents on land comprised in Busiro Block 411 Plot 396 at Sisa is hereby vacated.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Caveats — Caveatable Interest — Burden of Proof
For a caveat to be valid, the caveator must have a caveatable interest, legal or equitable, in the land. A caveatable interest is a protectable interest that must be established by evidence.
Land & Property — Caveats — Removal — Evidence Required to Support Claim
Where a caveator alleges that the caveated plot was carved from another plot in which they have an interest, they must adduce evidence such as an area schedule from the Ministry Zonal Office to prove the allegation. Failure to prove the connection renders the caveat baseless.
Civil Procedure — Evidence — Submissions from the Bar
A court cannot base its decision on submissions made by counsel from the bar where those submissions are not supported by evidence in the affidavits filed. The rule of the thumb is that there must be evidence or averments in the affidavits to support claims for relief.
Land & Property — Caveats — Compensation under Registration of Titles Act s.142
Under section 142 of the Registration of Titles Act, compensation for lodging a caveat without reasonable cause is recoverable only where the applicant adduces evidence of specific damage sustained. Legal fees incurred in vacating a caveat are recoverable as costs, not as compensation.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (3)

  • Sentongo Produce & Coffee Farmers Ltd v Rose Nakafuma (HCMC No. 690 of 1990)
  • Bateesa Lameck aka Lameck Senfuka and Another v Alan Zinga and Another (HCMC No. 53 of 2021)
  • Simon Kataabu v Richard Ssimbwa (MC No. 121 of 2020)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Nantongo_v_Sserubidde_&_2_Others_(Miscellaneous_Cause_19_of_2024)_[2024]_UGHCLD_83_(26_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.