Uganda Motors Limited v The Commissioner for Land Registration & Another (Civil Suit 428 of 2006)
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.
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
Court held that the Registrar was not justified in failing to register the plaintiff's caveat which met all requirements. However, the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation under section 183 of the Registration of Titles Act because the loss of land resulted from court orders in separate proceedings, not from the Registrar's omission, and there was no ascertainable nexus between the omission and the ultimate loss.
Outcome
Plaintiff's suit dismissed with finding that Registrar's omission was unjustified but did not cause the claimed loss
Facts
Uganda Motors Ltd was registered proprietor of Kyaddondo Block 232, Plot 1170 on 12 January 1988. Following a summary suit judgment for Shs.8,746,545/= in favour of Directel (U) Ltd, the land was attached and sold to Emmanuel Mwebaze on 2 May 2000 for Shs.30,000,000/=. Mwebaze was registered as proprietor on 16 June 2000. The land was subsequently transferred through Mugume David Kamusala to Arthur Mukwatanise. On 12 July 2000, Uganda Motors lodged a caveat at 10:10 a.m., which was received and allocated instrument number KLA 216515 but never registered on the certificate of title. The Registrar instead registered two subsequent instruments in favour of other parties at 10:45 a.m. the same day. Uganda Motors obtained a consent order restoring it as proprietor on 27 September 2001, but this consent order was later set aside by court on review in Misc. Application No. 62 of 2002. Uganda Motors brought this statutory suit under sections 183 and 185 of the Registration of Titles Act seeking compensation for loss of the land allegedly caused by the Registrar's failure to register its caveat.
Issues
- Whether the Registrar of Titles was, in the circumstances, justified in not registering the plaintiff's caveat.
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation under the Registration of Titles Act.
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- Suit dismissed.
- No order as to costs — each party to bear own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (8)
- Registration of Titles Act Cap. 239 s.183
- Registration of Titles Act Cap. 239 s.185
- Registration of Titles Act Cap. 239 s.186
- Registration of Titles Act Cap. 239 s.139(1)
- Registration of Titles Act Cap. 239 s.139(4)
- Registration of Titles Act Cap. 239 s.63
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 33 rule 3
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 rule 3(2)
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.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.