Solome Christine Namagembe v Sekubwa Schofield Bukulu and Others (Civil Suit No. 368 of 2018)

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

The High Court held that the defendants fraudulently procured registration of the plaintiff's land by converting duplicate certificates deposited as security for a refund obligation into ownership without consent or lawful transfer instruments. The court found that only two small roadside plots were lawfully purchased, and the subsequent registration of three larger plots was void ab initio. The limitation period began running only upon the plaintiff's discovery of the fraud in 2009, rendering the 2015 suit timely. The court ordered cancellation of the fraudulent registrations, rectification of the register, and awarded general damages of UGX 100,000,000.

Outcome

Fraudulent registrations cancelled, register rectified to reinstate plaintiff as proprietor, defendants ordered to give vacant possession within 90 days, permanent injunction granted, general damages awarded

Facts

The plaintiff was the registered proprietor of Bugerere Block 123 Plots 134, 182 and 329. In 1994, she sold two small roadside plots (1086 and 1087) to the defendants for UGX 1,400,000 each. When transfer difficulties arose, the parties executed a refund agreement on 17 August 1994 requiring the plaintiff to refund UGX 4,000,000 to each defendant if transfers failed. As security, she deposited duplicate certificates for the three larger plots. On 29 September 1994, without any sale agreement, proof of consideration, or documented variation of the refund agreement, the plaintiff's name was cancelled from the register for Plots 134, 182 and 329, and the defendants were registered as proprietors. The plaintiff discovered this only in 2009 when she conducted official searches. She maintained she never executed transfer instruments, never sold the larger plots, and did not consent to the defendants' registration. The defendants claimed she voluntarily executed transfers in satisfaction of the refund obligation.

Issues

1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation under the Limitation Act.
2. What land, if any, was lawfully purchased by the 1st and 2nd Defendants from the Plaintiff.
3. Whether the cancellation of the Plaintiff's registration and the subsequent registration of the 1st and 2nd Defendants as proprietors of Bugerere Block 123 Plots 134, 182 and 329 was lawful and valid.
4. What remedies, if any, are available to the parties.

Orders

• Registration of the 1st and 2nd Defendants over Bugerere Block 123 Plots 134, 182 and 329, including subdivisions, is cancelled.
• The Commissioner Land Registration shall rectify the register and reinstate the Plaintiff as proprietor of Bugerere Block 123 Plots 134, 182 and 329.
• The 1st and 2nd Defendants, and all persons claiming under or through them, shall give the Plaintiff vacant possession of Bugerere Block 123 Plots 134, 182 and 329 within ninety (90) days from the date of this judgment.
• A permanent injunction is issued restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, or any persons claiming under them from entering upon, occupying, cultivating, developing, transferring, or otherwise interfering with the Plaintiff's quiet possession and enjoyment of Bugerere Block 123 Plots 134, 182 and 329.
• Nothing in this judgment affects Bugerere Block 123 Plots 1086 and 1087, which were lawfully purchased by the Defendants but were never effectively transferred and were subsequently sold off and developed by third parties not before this Court.
• The Plaintiff's claim for mesne profits is declined for want of strict proof.
• The 1st and 2nd Defendants shall jointly and severally pay the Plaintiff UGX 100,000,000/= as general damages for the wrongful deprivation of her land.
• Interest on the general damages shall accrue at 8% per annum from the date of this judgment until payment in full.
• The Plaintiff is awarded the costs of the suit, to be taxed in the usual manner.
• The Chief Government Valuer, or an independent valuer agreed upon by the parties, shall within sixty (60) days from the date of this judgment assess the current open market value of Bugerere Block 123 Plots 1086 and 1087 as at the date of this judgment.
• Upon receipt of the valuation report, the Plaintiff shall pay to the 1st and 2nd Defendants the assessed market value of Plots 1086 and 1087, apportioned according to their respective purchases, within ninety (90) days.
• Payment of the assessed market value shall constitute full and final settlement of all claims by the 1st and 2nd Defendants against the Plaintiff arising from the failed transfers of Bugerere Block 123 Plots 1086 and 1087.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Limitation Act Cap. 290 s.5
• Limitation Act Cap. 290 s.25
• Registration of Titles Act Cap. 240 s.76
• Contracts Act s.19(1)(a)
• Civil Procedure Act s.27

Cases cited (3)

• Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
• 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)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• James Ham Ssali v Land and Property Management Services (E.A) Ltd (Civil Suit 189 of 2018)

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