Rwabunyoro v Kalule (Miscellaneous Cause No. 45 of 2014)

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.

Holding

The court held that a certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership under Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act and can only be impeached on grounds of fraud. Where a respondent fails to file an affidavit in reply opposing an application, facts sworn in the applicant's affidavit are taken as accepted. The applicant, as registered proprietor who conducted due diligence searches showing no encumbrances, is entitled to have a caveat removed where the caveator advances no evidence of adverse claim and fails to appear.

Outcome

Caveat removed; applicant free to transact on registered land

Facts

The applicant was the registered proprietor of land in Bulemezi Block 134 Plot 11 at Namakofu, having obtained registration on 25 October 2012. Before purchase, his advocates conducted searches at the mailo land office confirming the land had no encumbrances and belonged to the estate of the late Mikairi Mukasa, administered by Kiggundu James. In December 2013, the applicant discovered the respondent had lodged a caveat claiming to protect the interests of the estate of the late Ziyadi Teefe under powers of attorney from Ziyadi's children. The respondent alleged Ziyadi had purchased the land in the 1950s without documentation and that Mikairi Mukasa died before effecting transfer. The applicant contended the respondent had no legal basis for the claim as one power of attorney donor had died in 2013 and the other was not a beneficiary of Ziyadi's estate. The respondent never opposed the application despite service.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent's caveat on the applicant's certificate of title should be removed.
2. Whether the applicant as registered proprietor has conclusive evidence of ownership under the Registration of Titles Act.
3. Whether the respondent has any legal basis to claim interest in the suit land.

Orders

• Caveat lodged by the respondent on the applicant's certificate of title for land comprised in Bulemezi Block 134 Plot 11 at Namakofu be and is hereby removed.
• Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (10)

• Registration of Titles Act s.140
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3
• Registration of Titles Act s.59
• Registration of Titles Act s.187
• Evidence Act s.101
• Evidence Act s.102
• Evidence Act s.103
• Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.20(1)

Cases cited (8)

• Remmy Kasule v Jack Sabiti & 2 Others (HCMA No. 22 of 2006)
• Mugerwa Muliisa Paul & Another v Twaha Kiganda (HCCA No. 9 of 2012)
• Justine E.M.N Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd (SCCA No. 11 of 2002)
• Francis Kisitu Vs. Kide Hardware (U) Ltd (1998) KALR 966
• Wassa Vs. Achen [1978] HCB 297
• Haji Abdu Nandalla v General Stores (HCCA No. 6 of 1998)
• Gandesha & Another v Lutaya (SCMA No. 14 of 1989)
• Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 22 of 1992)

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