Okello v Uganda National Examination Board (COURT OF APPEAL No. 12 of 1987)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Supreme Court held that under the Registration of Titles Act a certificate of title is conclusive evidence that the named person is the registered proprietor, and can be impeached only on limited grounds, including fraud under s.184; absent fraud, a court cannot go behind the fact of registration. The burden of proving that the appellant obtained registration fraudulently lay on the respondent, which adduced no evidence. Although the respondent's pleadings of fraud were defective in form, irregularities of form may be cured where they cause no prejudice and do not necessarily vitiate the pleadings. As the appellant produced his certificate of title and the fraud allegation was unproved, his title stood and the appeal was allowed with costs.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; the High Court's dismissal of the suit set aside and the appellant's registered title upheld; costs to the appellant in both courts.

Facts

The East African Examination Council was granted a lease in 1973 for 99 years, on condition that the building be completed within two years, failing which the lease would determine, subject to renewal at the Land Commission's discretion. The Council failed to complete the building; time was extended, ultimately to 1980, but it again failed and had ceased to exist. The appellant then applied to the Land Commission for the land and, his application being granted, obtained a title deed to the suit property (LRV 1253 Folio 9, Plot M 207, Mabua Road, Kololo, Kampala) on 1 July 1983 after fulfilling City Council building requirements and obtaining finance. When the appellant began developing the property, the respondent interfered with his workmen and claimed the property. The appellant sued in the High Court for a declaration of title, an injunction and general damages. The respondent's written statement of defence alleged that the appellant had obtained registration by fraud, but the respondent did not appear at trial. The appellant gave evidence on oath and produced a copy of his certificate of title (Exhibit P1).

Issues

1. Whether the appellant's certificate of title could be impeached on the ground of fraud.
2. Whether the respondent's written statement of defence sufficiently pleaded the particulars of fraud and ought to have been struck out for failing to do so.
3. Whether the trial judge erred in striking out the issues she had framed and recorded.
4. Whether the appellant was entitled to the general damages claimed.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant in the Supreme Court and in the court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Registration of Titles Act s.55
• Registration of Titles Act s.56
• Registration of Titles Act s.184
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 13 rule 1(4)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 13 rule 1(6)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 13 rule 5(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 13 rule 5(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 (particulars of fraud)

Cases cited (4)

• Olinda de Souza Figueiredo v Kassamali Manji (1962) EA 756
• Castellino v Rodrigues (1972) EA 223
• ...Building Co. Ltd V. ... Timber Co. Ltd (1926) A.C. 101 (Privy Council)
• ... vs Musajja & Others ... per Sir Udo Udoma C.J., citing the speech of Fletcher Moulton L.J. at page 395

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.

• Lwalwa Dauson v Kibuku District Local Government (Civil Suit No. 51 of 2020)

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