Wakilii

Shaban and Another v Lamba Enterprises Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 287 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 127 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaration that fraudulent transfer is void and for cancellation of registration
Decision
Fraudulent registration declared void ab initio; 1st Defendant's name ordered cancelled from certificate of title; 1st Plaintiff ordered re-registered as proprietor; permanent injunction granted; damages and costs awarded to Plaintiffs

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 1st Defendant fraudulently secured registration of its name on the 1st Plaintiff's certificate of title without the plaintiff's consent or execution of transfer forms. The court found that the plaintiff had been induced to surrender his title under false pretences in 2009 by persons claiming to lease a stone quarry, and subsequently discovered the fraudulent transfer in 2020. Applying sections 77 and 176(c) of the Registration of Titles Act, the court declared the fraudulent registration void ab initio and ordered cancellation of the 1st Defendant's entry and re-registration of the plaintiff as proprietor.

Outcome

Fraudulent registration declared void ab initio; 1st Defendant's name ordered cancelled from certificate of title; 1st Plaintiff ordered re-registered as proprietor; permanent injunction granted; damages and costs awarded to Plaintiffs

Facts

In 2009, the 1st Plaintiff was approached by unidentified gentlemen proposing a lease for a stone quarry on part of the suit land comprised in Block 64 Plot 213 at Bamutakude. The plaintiff surrendered his original certificate of title for scrutiny and received UGX 5,000,000/= as a deposit, expecting to execute the lease. The gentlemen disappeared with the title and the plaintiff never saw them again. In 2020, when a kibanja owner on the suit land proposed to purchase his portion, the plaintiff conducted a search at the land registry and discovered that his title had been transferred into the 1st Defendant's names. The plaintiff reported the matter to police, who retrieved documents from the land registry. Examination revealed that the signature on the transfer forms differed from the plaintiff's signature, the persons appearing as directors of the 1st Defendant were unknown to the plaintiff, and the registered consideration of UGX 8,000,000/= was unrealistically low for land with a rock. The plaintiff had never executed transfer forms, never signed any documents for the 1st Defendant, never met any official from the 1st Defendant company, and no consent was sought from his wife (the 2nd Plaintiff). Both Defendants were served (1st Defendant by substituted service on 10 December 2021; 2nd Defendant physically on 16 December 2021) but filed no defence. The suit proceeded ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st Defendant's name was fraudulently entered on the certificate of title for land comprised in Block 64, Plot 213 land at Bamutakude, by the 2nd Defendant.
  2. Whether there are remedies available to the parties.

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiffs.
  • Declaration that the 1st Defendant's fraudulent registration of its names on the 1st Plaintiff's certificate of title for land comprised in Block 64 Plot 213 land at Bamutakude is void.
  • Declaration that any transaction arising from the 1st Defendant's fraudulent entry on the 1st Plaintiff's certificate of title by the 2nd Defendant is a nullity and void ab initio.
  • The Registrar of Titles (2nd Defendant) to cancel the 1st Defendant's names from the 1st Plaintiff's certificate of title and re-enter the 1st Plaintiff's names as the registered proprietor of the suit land.
  • Permanent injunction issued against the 1st Defendant restraining it, its agents, workmen, successors in title or those deriving title from it, from interfering with the 1st Plaintiff's ownership and quiet possession of the suit land.
  • General damages of UGX 20,000,000/= awarded to the Plaintiffs payable by the 1st Defendant.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiffs as against the 1st Defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Land Registration — Fraudulent Transfer — Voidness of Registration Procured by Fraud
Under section 77 of the Registration of Titles Act Cap. 230, any certificate of title, entry, removal of encumbrance, or cancellation in the Register Book procured or made by fraud is void as against all parties or privies to the fraud.
Land Registration — Fraud Exception to Indefeasibility — Recovery of Land
Section 176(c) of the Registration of Titles Act permits an action for recovery of land against a person registered as proprietor through fraud or against a person deriving otherwise than as a bona fide transferee for value from or through a person so registered through fraud.
Burden of Proof — Standard of Proof in Fraud Cases
Fraud must be strictly proved, the burden being heavier than that on balance of probabilities generally applied in civil matters, and must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved before a court of law by the person alleging it.
Unchallenged Evidence — Weight to be Given
Evidence that is not challenged by way of cross-examination or leading evidence to the contrary shall ordinarily be taken by the court as truth.
Land Registration — Cancellation of Fraudulent Entry — Court Powers
Under section 177 of the Registration of Titles Act, upon recovery of any land, estate or interest by any proceeding from the person registered as proprietor, the High Court may direct the Registrar to cancel any certificate of title or instrument or any entry or memorial in the Register Book relating to that land and substitute such certificate of title or entry as the circumstances require.
Injunctions — Permanent Injunction — Grounds for Grant
Permanent injunctions are granted as a remedy against an infringement or violation which has been proven at trial, and are issued to prevent ongoing or future infringements or violations, preserving rights and restraining injury for the purpose of dispensing complete justice between the parties.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (4)

  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Akena Christopher and 9 Others v Opwonya Noah (High Court Civil Appeal No. 0035 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Shaban and Another v Lamba Enterprises Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 287 of 2023) [2023] UGHCCD 127 (4 May 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.