Wakilii

Walusimbi v Nasasira & Anor (Misc. Application No. 22 of 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHCLD 46 · 2019 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for vesting order, removal of caveat, and issuance of special certificate of title
Decision
Application dismissed with liberty to reapply after exhausting administrative remedies

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. Held that s.167 of the Registration of Titles Act requires an applicant to first apply to the Commissioner for Land Registration for a vesting order before approaching the High Court. The applicant failed to provide evidence that he had made such application to the Registrar or that the Registrar had refused or failed to grant the orders sought. Without proof of exhaustion of the administrative remedy, the Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction to grant the vesting order, remove the caveat, or issue a special certificate of title.

Outcome

Application dismissed with liberty to reapply after exhausting administrative remedies

Facts

The applicant claimed to have purchased land at Namwezi comprised in Kyadondo Block 120, Plot 1709 from the first respondent, paying the full purchase price and taking possession. He alleged the first respondent could not be found to sign the transfer instrument or surrender the duplicate certificate of title. The applicant lodged a caveat on 14 March 2017 to protect his interest. He filed a supplementary affidavit stating he had applied to the Commissioner for Land Registration (second respondent) for a vesting order, removal of caveat, and issuance of special certificate of title, but that the Commissioner had refused or failed to grant these orders. However, the applicant provided no documentary proof of these applications to the Registrar. The respondents did not file replies despite service.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant complied with the procedural prerequisite of first applying to the Commissioner for Land Registration under s.167 of the Registration of Titles Act before seeking a vesting order from Court.
  2. Whether the applicant provided sufficient evidence of such application to the Registrar and the Registrar's refusal or failure to grant the requested orders.
  3. Whether the second respondent should remove the applicant's caveat from the land register.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Applicant to first apply to the Commissioner for Land Registration for the vesting order, removal of caveat, and issuance of special certificate of title, and provide evidence of same before the Court can grant the application.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Registration of Titles Act s.167 — Vesting Orders — Procedural Prerequisites — Application to Registrar
Section 167 of the Registration of Titles Act makes it a procedural prerequisite that applications for vesting orders must be made to the Commissioner for Land Registration before coming to Court, and the applicant must provide evidence of the application to the Registrar and the Registrar's refusal or failure to grant the order.
Evidence — Affidavits — Burden of Proof — Documentary Evidence
An affidavit is not a pleading but acts as evidence given under oath. Where an applicant avers in an affidavit that certain applications were made to an administrative body, the applicant must attach documentary proof of such applications and not rely on bare averments.
Registration of Titles Act s.145 — Removal of Caveats — Jurisdiction — Application to Registrar
An application for removal of a caveat under s.145 of the Registration of Titles Act must be made to the Registrar in the first instance. The Court will not exercise jurisdiction to remove a caveat where the applicant has not first sought and been refused the administrative remedy.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (4)

  • Mutyaba v Kayimbye & Anor (Misc. Cause No. 40 of 2018)
  • Edward Kimera v Nakakembo Christine & 5 Ors (Misc. Cause No. 139 of 2018)
  • Ronald Oine v Commissioner for Land Registration (Misc. Cause No. 90 of 2013)
  • Daniel Nkalubo Sebugwawo (Misc. Application No. 007 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Walusimbi_Vs_Nasasira_&_Anor_(Misc._Application_No._22_of_2018)_[2019]_UGHCLD_46_(29_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.