Wakilii

Twinomugisha and Another v Wandera and Another (Misc Cause 51 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 211 · 2023 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, section 142 of the Registration of Titles Act, and Order 52 rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking vacation of caveat and compensation
Decision
Application partly allowed with costs; caveat already vacated by 2nd Respondent; compensation denied

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 court declined to award compensation to the applicants for losses allegedly sustained due to a caveat lodged on their land title, finding that the application was not determined on its merits and therefore the court could not assess whether the respondent had reasonable grounds to lodge the caveat. However, the court awarded costs to the applicants against the first respondent because the respondent's caveat necessitated the filing of the application.

Outcome

Application partly allowed with costs; caveat already vacated by 2nd Respondent; compensation denied

Facts

The applicants purchased land comprised in Kyaggwe Block 97, Plot 4451 and took possession. The 1st respondent claimed she had purchased the same land from one Twinomujuni Benson and paid UGX 300,000,000. After disputes and police involvement, it emerged that the 1st respondent may have been defrauded by Twinomujuni Benson while the applicants held a genuine title from an earlier 2019 transaction. The 1st respondent lodged a caveat on the land in June 2022. The applicants claimed they were unable to subdivide the land for resale and had paid UGX 20,000,000 to a surveyor. During the hearing, the 2nd respondent vacated the caveat, leaving only the question of compensation and costs to be determined.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants are entitled to award of compensation and costs of this application.

Orders

  • Compensation denied to the Applicants.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the Applicants as against the 1st Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Land Registration — Caveats — Compensation for Caveat Without Reasonable Cause
Under section 142 of the Registration of Titles Act, a party claiming compensation for a caveat lodged without reasonable cause must specifically plead and prove with cogent evidence the damage sustained as a direct result of the lodging of the caveat, and the compensation must be properly assessed by the court.
Land Registration — Caveats — Reasonable Cause
Whether a caveator had reasonable grounds to lodge a caveat is a question of fact to be determined on the merits in the circumstances of each case; the fact that the caveator had no caveable interest does not necessarily mean there were no reasonable grounds, and conversely, having a caveable interest does not by itself establish reasonable cause.
Costs — Discretion — Application Overtaken by Events
Where a caveat is removed by the respondent after an application for its vacation has been filed, the removal does not eliminate the costs incurred by the applicants in filing and pursuing the application, and the court may award costs in exercise of its discretion under section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (1)

  • Eladam Enterprises Ltd v S.G.S (U) Ltd and Others (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2002)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Twinomugisha_and_Another_v_Wandera_and_Another_(Misc_Cause_51_of_2022)_[2023]_UGHCLD_211_(21_July_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.