Wakilii

Tumwine v Isingoma and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 131 of 2019)

High Court · [2021] UGHCLD 166 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to remove caveat lodged on applicant's leasehold title
Decision
Caveat maintained pending proof that prior appellate judgment in favour of 1st Respondent has been overturned or set aside

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

Application dismissed. The court held that the caveat lodged by the 1st Respondent should be maintained until the applicant provides documentary evidence that a prior High Court judgment on appeal in favour of the 1st Respondent has been overturned or set aside. The court found that the applicant failed to disclose the existence of prior litigation between the parties, including a High Court decree on appeal dated 13 July 2013 in favour of the 1st Respondent, which raised valid concerns that the 1st Respondent may have had reasonable cause to lodge the caveat.

Outcome

Caveat maintained pending proof that prior appellate judgment in favour of 1st Respondent has been overturned or set aside

Facts

The applicant is the registered proprietor of leasehold land comprised in Leasehold Register Volume KCCA 180 Folio 2 Plot Number 15 Nakawa Division Blacklege Road, Kampala District, having been granted a 39-year lease with effect from 1 May 2009 by Kampala District Land Board. In May 2019, when the applicant commenced development plans, a search revealed that the 1st Respondent had lodged a caveat on the land on 5 June 2017 under Instrument Number KCCA-00039393. The applicant claimed the 1st Respondent had no interest in the land and sought removal of the caveat and compensation. The 1st Respondent did not file a defence. However, the court ordered the Commissioner Land Registration to avail documents relating to the caveat. The affidavit attached to the caveat revealed that the 1st Respondent (Florence Isingoma alias Maama Lillian) had been involved in prior litigation with the applicant, including Civil Suit No. 0009/2017 where judgment was in favour of the applicant, and Civil Appeal No. 49/2008 where judgment on appeal dated 13 July 2013 was in favour of the 1st Respondent. The applicant had not disclosed these prior proceedings in his application.

Issues

  1. Whether the caveat lodged by the 1st Respondent on the applicant's leasehold title should be removed or maintained.
  2. Whether the 1st Respondent had reasonable cause to lodge the caveat.
  3. Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation or damages for the lodgment of the caveat.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • The caveat lodged by the 1st Respondent on the Certificate of Title of the land comprised in Leasehold Register Volume KCCA 180 Folio 2 Plot Number 15 Nakawa Division Block Blacklege Road, Kampala District under Instrument Number KCCA-00039393 be maintained until the Applicant avails documentary evidence that the High Court judgment/decree on appeal by the 1st Respondent was overturned or set aside within a period of 30 days from the date of this ruling.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Caveats — Validity — Requirement of Protectable Interest
For a caveat to be valid, the caveator must have a protectable interest, legal or equitable, to be protected by the caveat; otherwise the caveat would be invalid.
Land & Property — Caveats — Reasonable Cause — Distinction from Caveatable Interest
The fact that a caveator has a caveatable interest does not in itself mean that he or she had reasonable cause to lodge the caveat; conversely, the fact that a caveator had no caveatable interest does not necessarily mean that he or she had no reasonable grounds to enter the caveat. The reasonableness or lack of it to lodge a caveat is a question of fact to be determined in the circumstances of each case.
Land & Property — Caveats — Purpose — Temporary Protection
The primary objective of a caveat is to give the caveator temporary protection.
Civil Procedure — Duty of Disclosure — Material Non-Disclosure in Applications
An applicant has a duty to disclose all material facts to the court, including the existence of prior litigation between the parties. Failure to disclose pertinent facts such as a prior High Court judgment on appeal in favour of the respondent raises valid concerns and may result in dismissal of the application.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (6)

  • Eridadi Ahimbisibwe v World Food Programme [1998] IV KALR 32
  • Sentongo Produce V Coffee Farmers Limited & Anor v Rose Nakafuma Muyiisa (HCMC 690 of 1999)
  • Hunter Investments Ltd v Simon Lwanyanga & Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 34 of 2012)
  • Hooke vs Holland (1984) WAR 167
  • Kuper & Kuper Vs West Construction Pyt Ltd (1990) 3 WL 419
  • Boynes Vs Gathure (1969) EA 385

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tumwine_v_Isingoma_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Cause_No._131_of_2019)_[2021]_UGHCLD_166_(5_November_2021)
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.