Wakilii

Sentongo v Registrar of Titles (Miscellaneous Application 66 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 324 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for consequential order to cancel land title following judgment in Chief Magistrate's Court
Decision
Title in the name of Kagimu Bashir ordered cancelled and Sentongo Denis to be registered as proprietor of Buddu Block 325 Plot 211

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 granted the application for cancellation of title under Registration of Titles Act s.177. Where a party recovers land by judgment from a registered proprietor, the court may direct the Registrar to cancel the certificate of title and substitute the successful party as proprietor. The applicant satisfied the prerequisites by producing a judgment from the Chief Magistrate's Court declaring the defendant's title illegally acquired. The Registrar of Titles was ordered to cancel Kagimu Bashir's name and register Sentongo Denis as proprietor of Buddu Block 325 Plot 211.

Outcome

Title in the name of Kagimu Bashir ordered cancelled and Sentongo Denis to be registered as proprietor of Buddu Block 325 Plot 211

Facts

The applicant was plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 102 of 2015 at the Chief Magistrate's Court of Masaka challenging the ownership of Kagimu Bashir over land comprised in Buddu Block 325 Plot 211. The Chief Magistrate found that Ssemaganda John had sold the land to the applicant before purporting to sell it to Kagimu Bashir. The sale agreement between Ssemaganda John and Kagimu Bashir was declared null and void. The Chief Magistrate made a consequential order that the High Court should cancel the land title in Kagimu Bashir's name for being illegally acquired. The applicant then filed this application seeking cancellation of the title and registration in his name. The Registrar of Titles was served but did not file a reply or attend the hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has satisfied the grounds for the exercise of the court's discretion to grant the consequential order sought.
  2. What remedies are available to the applicant.

Orders

  • The Registrar of Titles is hereby ordered to cancel the name Kagimu Bashir on the certificate for land known and described as Buddu Block 325 Plot 211 at Nakayiba.
  • The Registrar of Titles should recall the Duplicate Certificate of Title currently in the custody of Kagimu Bashir and cancel the name Kagimu Bashir from it and enter the name Sentongo Denis on it.
  • In the event that the said Duplicate Certificate of Title is not returned by Kagimu Bashir, the Registrar of Titles shall issue a new/special certificate of title to the Applicant in his name, Sentongo Denis.
  • The Applicant will meet the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Registration of Title — Cancellation of Title — Prerequisites under Registration of Titles Act s.177
To invoke Registration of Titles Act s.177 and have the register book rectified by cancellation, an applicant must satisfy the court that he or she has recovered the land, estate or any interest in question by proceedings from any person registered as proprietor of the land.
Land & Property — Registration of Title — Consequential Orders — Procedure for Registration Following Recovery of Land
Before a person who has obtained judgment for the recovery of land against a registered proprietor can be registered as proprietor, he must first apply to the court to make a consequential order. This is the only method prescribed by the Registration of Titles Act.
Civil Procedure — Parties — Proper Respondent in Applications under Registration of Titles Act s.177
In applications under Registration of Titles Act s.177, the Chief Registrar (or Registrar of Titles) should be made respondent. It is pointless to make the person from whom land had been recovered the respondent.
Civil Procedure — Default — Effect of Failure to File Defence or Reply
Where a party fails to file a defence or affidavit in reply despite being duly served, that party puts himself or herself outside court and disentitles himself or herself of any locus standi and the right to be heard. The matter may proceed ex parte, though the burden remains on the applicant to prove the case to the requisite standard.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Standard in Civil Proceedings
The burden of proof in a civil suit lies upon the person whose action would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side, and the standard is on a balance of probabilities. This burden remains even where the matter proceeds ex parte.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (8)

  • Kubibabaire v Kakwenzire [1977] HCB 37
  • Yoswa Kityo v Erya Kaddu [1982] HCB 58
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Sengendo v Attorney General [1972] 1 EA 140
  • Kanji Devji v Damor Jinabhai & Co [1934] 1 EACA 87
  • Re Ivan Mutaka [1981] HCB 28
  • Andrea Lwanga v Registrar of Titles [1980] HCB 24
  • Uganda Blanket Manufacturers Ltd v Chief Registrar of Titles (Miscellaneous Application No. 55 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sentongo v Registrar of Titles (Miscellaneous Application 66 of 2021) [2023] UGHC 324 (16 February 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.