Wakilii

Saliwako v Segantebuka (Misc Cause 335 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 393 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by miscellaneous cause to vacate caveats lodged on land
Decision
Application dismissed for failure to prove prima facie proprietary interest in the land

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

An applicant seeking removal of a caveat who is not the registered proprietor must first satisfy the court with prima facie evidence of their proprietary or quasi-proprietary interest in the land. Where the applicant failed to adduce certificates of title or transfer instruments to prove registered interest in the caveated land, and where the caveat itself was not properly described or evidenced, the application for removal of the caveat must be dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed for failure to prove prima facie proprietary interest in the land

Facts

The applicant claimed to be a beneficiary of the estate of the late Isaak Kiwanuka Sengoba by virtue of a memorandum of understanding dated 29 December 2010, allocating her land comprised in Mailo Register Busiro Block 432 plots 499 and 866. The respondent lodged a caveat on the land on 30 June 2017 as attorney for Bukirwa Specioza and Namagembe Proscovia who claimed interest in the land. Bukirwa Specioza and Namagembe Proscovia through the respondent had instituted HCCS No. 2026 of 2016 against the applicant and two others for recovery of land, but that suit was dismissed for lack of locus standi. The applicant applied to have the caveats vacated. The respondent did not file an affidavit in reply or appear at the hearing despite being served.

Issues

  1. Whether or not the respondent has caveatable interest in the suit land.
  2. Whether or not 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

Land & Property — Caveats — Burden of Proof — Applicant Not Registered Proprietor
Where an applicant seeking removal of a caveat is not the registered proprietor of the land, it is incumbent upon the applicant to first satisfy the court that there are sufficient grounds in fact and law for treating the applicant as a person claiming such interest in the land as would, if established, make the applicant aggrieved by the existence of the caveat.
Land & Property — Caveats — Evidence Required — Certificate of Title
An applicant who claims to be the registered proprietor seeking to vacate a caveat must adduce prima facie evidence of their registered interest in the land, including certificates of title and transfer instruments, in order to demonstrate an unfettered right to deal with the land.
Civil Procedure — Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Burden of Proof
Even where an application stands uncontested because the respondent has not filed an affidavit in reply, the applicant must still discharge the burden of proof and present a meticulous case to the satisfaction of the court to warrant the relief sought.
Land & Property — Caveats — Description and Evidence — Instrument Number
An applicant seeking removal of a caveat must properly describe the caveat by providing the instrument number and the date of filing at the land registry to enable the court to verify the existence of the caveat.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (6)

  • Sentongo Produce and Coffee Famers Limited & another v Rose Nakafuma Muyisa (HCMC No. 690 of 1999)
  • Simon Kattabu v Richard Simbwa (HCMC No. 121 of 2020)
  • Samwiri Massa v Rose Achen (1978) HCB 297
  • Mutembuli Yusuf v Nagwomu Moses Musamba & Another (EP Appeal No. 43 of 2016)
  • Eng Mee Young & others v Letchumanan s/o Velayutham [1980] AC 331
  • Rutungi Properties Limited v Linda Harriet Carrington & Harriet Kabagenyi (Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Saliwako_v_Segantebuka_(Misc_Cause_335_of_2023)_[2023]_UGHCLD_393_(17_October_2023)
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.