Saliwako v Mulumba (Miscellaneous Cause 335 of 2023)

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

Held that where an applicant who is not demonstrably the registered proprietor seeks removal of a caveat, she must first satisfy the court by producing documentary evidence (certificates of title and transfer instruments) that establishes her proprietary interest in the land. The applicant failed to adduce any certificates of title or transfer forms proving her registered interest, and the caveat itself was not adequately described. Without prima facie evidence of her unfettered right to deal with the land, the application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed for failure to prove registered proprietary interest in the land

Facts

Maria Saliwako, a beneficiary of the estate of late Isaak Kiwanuka Sengoba, was allocated 100 acres of land (Busiro Block 432 plots 499 and 866) under a memorandum of understanding dated 29 December 2010. She obtained transfer instruments from the estate administrator, Francis Kaleba, and claimed to have acquired a certificate of title. On 30 June 2017, Mulumba Segantebuka, acting as attorney for Bukirwa Specioza and Namagembe Proscovia, lodged caveats on the land forbidding any registration or dealings. The two women had filed HCCS No. 2026 of 2016 against Saliwako and two others, but that suit was dismissed for lack of locus standi. The caveats remained in place. Saliwako applied to vacate the caveats, but did not attach certificates of title or transfer forms to her affidavit. The respondent did not appear and did not file an affidavit in reply.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent has caveatable interest in the suit land.
2. Whether the caveats lodged by the respondent on the land comprised in Mailo Register Busiro Block 432 plots 499 and 866 at Bugabo belonging to the applicant should be vacated.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• No order as to costs.
• Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Judicature Act Cap.13 s.33
• Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.98
• Registration of Titles Act Cap.230 s.140
• Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3

Cases cited (6)

• Sentongo Produce and Coffee Farmers Limited & Another v Rose Nakafuma Muyisa (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 690 of 1999)
• Simon Kattabu v Richard Simbwa (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 121 of 2020)
• Samwiri Massa Vs Rose Achen, 1978 HCB 297
• Mutembuli Yusuf v Nagwomu Moses Musamba & Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 43 of 2016)
• Eng Mee Young & others Vs Letchumanan s/o Velayutham,1980 A.C page 331
• Rutungi Properties Limited v Linda Harriet Carrington & Harriet Kabagenyi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2010)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

• Livingstone Bongole v Commissioner Land Registration and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 7 of 2025)
• Kasozi Ivan v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No 6 of 2025)
• Saliwako v Segantebuka (Misc Cause 335 of 2023)

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