Wakilii

Rev. Curls Kalisa v Tugume Elijah and Others (Civil Suit No. 54 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1445 · 2025 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declarations of ownership and trespass, with counterclaim alleging fraudulent acquisition of title
Decision
Plaintiff's suit dismissed; counterclaim allowed; plaintiff's certificate of title ordered cancelled; land vested in Buikwe District Land Board; families of late Badiru Kamali and Kabega John recognised as beneficial owners

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 the plaintiff fraudulently obtained a certificate of title by falsely declaring himself a customary tenant when he was not, and without following proper conversion procedures. The court found that the suit land is public land vested in Buikwe District Land Board, and recognised the families of the late Badiru Kamali and Kabega John as beneficial owners with interests as bona fide occupants under the Land Act. The plaintiff's certificate of title was ordered cancelled, and the counterclaim was allowed with costs.

Outcome

Plaintiff's suit dismissed; counterclaim allowed; plaintiff's certificate of title ordered cancelled; land vested in Buikwe District Land Board; families of late Badiru Kamali and Kabega John recognised as beneficial owners

Facts

The plaintiff claimed to be the registered proprietor of land in Kyagwe Block 548, Plot 25, Muvo, Mukono District, measuring approximately 67.5720 hectares, which he alleged he found vacant in 2016 and applied to convert from customary to freehold tenure. The defendants counterclaimed that they and their predecessors had occupied the land since 1971, when the late Badiru Kamali and Kabega Lazaalo acquired portions and formed the Mabanga Farmers Group. The defendants alleged they purchased kibanja interests from original occupants and that the plaintiff fraudulently obtained title through Mukono District Land Board despite the land being situated in Buikwe District. Evidence showed that the plaintiff admitted he was not a customary tenant, did not personally involve himself in the conversion process, and that a signature on the application form was forged. The land was formerly known as Muvo Lake Shore Exchange and had been surrendered to the Protectorate Government under the 1900 Buganda Agreement, making it public land.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit land
  2. Whether the Defendants/Counterclaimants are trespassers on the suit land
  3. Whether the Plaintiff obtained the Certificate of Title or registrable interest fraudulently
  4. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • The counterclaim is allowed.
  • The Plaintiff's certificate of title was fraudulently obtained.
  • The suit land is public land.
  • The suit land is vested in Buikwe District Land Board.
  • The court recognises the families of the late Badiru Kamali and Kabega John as beneficial owners to the land.
  • Buikwe District Land Board is directed to establish the interests of the two families and all those they could have genuinely sold to.
  • The 2nd Counter defendant committed a breach of statutory obligation and breach of duty in issuing a certificate of title to the 1st counter defendant in respect of the suit land.
  • The Commissioner Land Registration is directed to cancel the certificate of title comprised in freehold register volume MKO 263 folio 1 known as Kyaggwe Block 548 plot 22 at Muvo measuring approximately 67.57440 hectares in the names of the Plaintiff.
  • The taxed costs of defending the suit and presentation of the counterclaim are awarded to the Defendants and Counter Claimants.

Rules and key headnotes

Customary Tenure — Requirements for Establishing Customary Ownership
A person seeking to establish customary ownership of land has the onus of proving that he or she belongs to a specific description or class of persons to whom customary rules limited in their operation, regulating ownership, use, management and occupation of land, apply in respect of a specific area of land, or that he or she acquired a part of that specific land in accordance with those rules. Mere occupancy and use of unregistered land, however long the occupancy and use may be, without more, is not proof of customary tenure.
Conversion from Customary to Freehold Tenure — Eligibility Requirements
Under section 9(1) of the Land Act, only a person, family, community or association holding land under customary tenure on former public land may convert the customary tenure into freehold tenure. An applicant who is not a customary tenant and does not hold land under customary tenure at the time of application lacks the legal standing to apply for conversion to freehold tenure.
Fraud in Land Registration — False Declaration of Customary Tenure
Where an applicant for conversion of land from customary to freehold tenure makes a false statement or declaration in the application that he is a customary tenant when he is not, and admits during cross-examination that he was not a customary tenant, such conduct amounts to fraud under section 171(1) of the Registration of Titles Act and renders the certificate of title void as against all parties or privies to the fraud.
Territorial Jurisdiction of District Land Boards
Land Boards operate within prescribed territorial boundaries that align with their district mandates as established by section 56 of the Land Act. Any act by a District Land Board outside its territorial limits is ultra vires, null and void. Where Mukono District Land Board issues a certificate of title for land situated in Buikwe District, such issuance is beyond its jurisdiction and constitutes a breach of statutory obligation.
Bona Fide Occupants — Protection under the Land Act
Original occupants of public land who have settled and developed the land over an extensive period fall within the definition of bona fide occupants under section 29(2) of the Land Act and enjoy constitutional protection. Those who purchase from original occupants are protected by section 29(5) of the Land Act. As sitting tenants, bona fide occupants are entitled to priority if freehold certificates of title are to be issued, or to fair compensation before any person applies for conversion to freehold tenure.
Burden of Proof — Fraud in Civil Cases
Although civil suits are determined on a balance of probabilities, the degree of proving fraud is higher than the ordinary civil standard. Fraud must be strictly proved. Where a defendant raises a counterclaim alleging that the plaintiff obtained title fraudulently, the defendant bears the burden of proving fraud to the requisite higher standard.
Trespass to Land — Standing to Sue
The tort of trespass to land is committed not against the land but against the person who is in actual or constructive possession of the land. Only a person in legal possession of land has capacity to sue in trespass. Where a plaintiff's certificate of title was fraudulently obtained and does not confer proprietary rights, the plaintiff lacks legal possession and therefore lacks capacity to sue in trespass.

Legislation cited (34)

Cases cited (26)

  • Auto Garage & Another v Motokov (No. 3) [1971] EA 514
  • Sebuliba v Co-operative Bank Ltd [1982] HCB 129
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Tororo Cement Co Ltd v Frokina International Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Kapeka Coffee Works Ltd v NPART (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • Paineto Semalulu v Nakito Eva Kasule (Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2008)
  • Fredrick J.K. Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Alfred Tajar v Uganda (East African Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1969)
  • Bwetegeine Kiiza and Another v Kadooba Kiiza (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2009)
  • Musisi v Edco and Another (High Court Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2010)
  • Justine E.M.N Lutaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Co (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Sheik Muhammed Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 4 of 1987)
  • Senkungu & 4 Ors v Mukasa (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2014)
  • George Tuhirirwe v Carolina Rwamuhanda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2007)
  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 13 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umari Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • British General Insurance Company Limited v Monshanlul Sulank (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1997)
  • Charles Lwanga v Centenary Rural Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1999)
  • Rookes v Barnard [1964] 1 All ER 367
  • Lydia Mugambe v Kayita James & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 339 of 2020)
  • Mugabi John v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 133 of 2002)
  • W.M Kyambadde v MPIGI District Administration [1984] HCB
  • Mutekanga v Equator Growers Uganda Ltd [1995-1998] EA 219
  • Jennifer Behingye, Rwanyindo Aurelia, Paulo Bagenzi v School Out fitters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1999)
  • Sabuni v Uganda [1981] HCB 1

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rev. Curls Kalisa v Tugume Elijah and Others (Civil Suit No. 54 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 1445 (7 October 2025)
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.