Wakilii

Ssemanda & Anor v Nakato & 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Cause No.50 of 2019)

High Court · [2019] UGHCLD 51 · 2019 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to vacate a caveat lodged on estate land
Decision
Caveat vacated and applicants granted liberty to proceed with registration as administrators

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

Held that caveats are temporary protective measures and caveators cannot sit idle after lodgment without taking steps to determine the rights of affected parties. Where a person affected by a caveat applies for vacation under Registration of Titles Act s.140(1), the caveator must show cause why it should not be vacated. The respondents failed to demonstrate any interest in land registered in the name of the late Mukasa Erasito and failed to respond to the application. The caveat was vacated.

Outcome

Caveat vacated and applicants granted liberty to proceed with registration as administrators

Facts

The applicants are joint administrators of the estate of the late Mukasa Erasito, who was the registered proprietor of land comprised in Busiro Block 400 Plot 36 at Nganjo. When registering as administrators, they discovered that the first and second respondents had lodged a caveat on the suit land in March 2017, claiming it formed part of the estate of one Lukwago Benon. The applicants contended the caveat was unjustified as the land was registered in the name of the late Mukasa Erasito through whom they claimed. The respondents were served with the application but failed to defend it or demonstrate any interest in the suit land.

Issues

  1. Whether the caveat lodged by the respondents on land comprised in Busiro Block 400 Plot 36 at Nganjo should be vacated.
  2. Whether the respondents have demonstrated any legal or equitable interest in the suit land to justify maintaining the caveat.

Orders

  • An order directing the 3rd Respondent to vacate the 1st and 2nd Respondents' caveat lodged on land comprised in Busiro Block 400 Plot 36 Nganjo.
  • An order that the 1st and 2nd Respondents meet costs of this application incurred by the Applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Caveats — Requirements for Validity — Legal or Equitable Interest
For a caveat to be valid, the caveator must have a legal or equitable interest in the land to be protected.
Caveats — Nature and Duration — Temporary Protective Measures
Caveats are temporary protective measures and caveators are barred from sitting idle after lodgment for an undetermined period without taking positive steps to determine the rights of parties affected by the caveat.
Caveats — Vacation — Burden of Proof under Registration of Titles Act s.140(1)
Under Registration of Titles Act s.140(1), once a person affected by a caveat applies to court for its vacation, the burden is upon the caveator to show cause why it should not be vacated, failing which an order to vacate may issue.
Affidavit Evidence — Uncontested Averments — Presumption of Admission
Where certain facts are sworn to in an affidavit and the other party does not deny them, they are presumed to have been accepted.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (9)

  • Norah Batwawula Nalubwama v Nuwa Kaddu and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 33 of 2015)
  • Hunter Investments Ltd v Simon Lwanyanga (Miscellaneous Application No. 34 of 2012)
  • Ssegirinya Gerald v Mutebi Innocent (Miscellaneous Application No. 81 of 2016)
  • Energo Projekt Niskogradnja Joint Stock Company v Brigadier Kasirye Ggwanga and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 558 of 2009)
  • Samwiri Mussa v Rose Achen (1978) HCB 297
  • Juliet Nabagala v Tereza Mbiro (Miscellaneous Cause No. 82 of 2011)
  • Tororo District Administration v Andalalapo Ltd [1977] IV KALR 126
  • Eridadi Ahimbisibwe v World Food Programme and Others [1998] IV KALR 32
  • Sentongo Produce & Coffee Farmers Ltd v Rose Nakafuma Thijusa (Miscellaneous Cause No. 690 of 1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssemanda_&_Anor_Vs_Nakato_&_2_Ors_(Miscellaneous_Cause_No.50_of_2019)_[2019]_UGHCLD_51_(20_August_2019)
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.