Wakilii

Yemima Kamiti v Stephen Busima Masibo (HCT-04-CV-CS-0092-2001)

High Court · [2002] UGHC 146 · 2002 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for trespass and orders for eviction, with plaintiff moving a preliminary objection that the defence disclosed no legally recognized defence
Decision
Defendant's defence struck out; plaintiff granted eviction order, permanent injunction, damages, and mesne profits with costs.

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 a registered proprietor holding a certificate of title has legal possession and can sue in trespass without proving actual physical possession. The defendant's defence did not fall within any exception under s.184 of the Registration of Titles Act permitting impeachment of a registered proprietor's title. Mere irregularities in the issuance of a certificate, or the presence of a caveat, do not constitute grounds to impeach title under s.184. The defendant could not rely on jus tertii or on actions of third parties not before the court. Defence struck out; judgment for plaintiff.

Outcome

Defendant's defence struck out; plaintiff granted eviction order, permanent injunction, damages, and mesne profits with costs.

Facts

The plaintiff purchased property known as LRV 190, Folio 5 Plot No. 59 Naboa Road, Mbale from the Ministry of Finance through the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (DAPCB) pursuant to an agreement of sale. After full payment, the Ministry issued a certificate of purchase and the Registrar of Land Titles registered her as proprietor on 9 November 2000 and issued a certificate of title. The defendant, who had entered into a separate agreement to purchase the same property from DAPCB and made part payment, occupied the property. DAPCB purported to terminate the defendant's sale. The defendant lodged a caveat and filed applications seeking to prohibit termination of his contract, which were dismissed for want of prosecution. The plaintiff brought this action for trespass, eviction, permanent injunction, mesne profits and damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant's written statement of defence disclosed any legally recognized defence under s.184 of the Registration of Titles Act.
  2. Whether a registered proprietor holding a certificate of title has sufficient legal possession to maintain an action for trespass.
  3. Whether the defendant could impeach the plaintiff's registered title on grounds of irregularity in issuance or the presence of a caveat.

Orders

  • A declaration that the defendant is a trespasser in suit property.
  • An eviction order doth issue against the defendant.
  • The plaintiff be put in immediate possession of suit property.
  • A permanent injunction doth issue against the defendant to restrain him from continuing with the trespass.
  • The plaintiff is awarded shs. 500,000/= as damages for trespass.
  • Mesne profits of shs. 50,000/= per month awarded from the date of filing suit until eviction of the defendant.
  • The defendant shall pay the costs of this suit.
  • The sums granted shall carry interest at court rate from the date of judgment till payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Registered Title — Indefeasibility — Grounds for Impeachment under Registration of Titles Act s.184
A registered proprietor's title cannot be impeached except in the cases enumerated in s.184 of the Registration of Titles Act: fraud, mortgage default, lease default, misdescription of boundaries, or where the claimant holds a certificate of title prior in date of registration. The production of a certificate of title is an absolute bar and estoppel to any action for recovery of land unless one of these exceptions applies, any rule of law or equity to the contrary notwithstanding.
Land & Property — Registered Title — Protection Against Irregularities in Issuance — Registration of Titles Act s.56
Under s.56 of the Registration of Titles Act, a certificate of title cannot be impeached by reason of any informality or irregularity in the application or proceedings previous to registration. The certificate is conclusive evidence that the person named as proprietor is seized or possessed of the estate or interest described therein. Irregularities in the registration process do not constitute a ground for impeachment where the registered proprietor is not shown to have been party to any fraud or illegality.
Land & Property — Caveat — Effect on Title — Registration of Titles Act s.184(e)
The presence of a caveat on a certificate of title does not bring the caveator within s.184(e) of the Registration of Titles Act. That provision protects a registered proprietor claiming under a certificate of title prior in date of registration where two or more certificates exist in respect of the same land. A caveator who is not himself a registered proprietor with a certificate of title cannot rely on s.184(e) to impeach the title of a registered proprietor.
Tort Law — Trespass to Land — Locus Standi — Registered Proprietor's Right to Sue Without Actual Possession
A registered proprietor holding a certificate of title has, by virtue of that title, legal possession and can sue in trespass even without actual physical possession. The vesting of absolute and indefeasible ownership under the Registration of Titles Act is sufficient to vest legal possession and support an action for trespass against a wrongful occupier. Constructive possession coupled with lawful entry or the institution of proceedings for possession entitles the registered proprietor to bring an action in trespass.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out Defence — Defence Disclosing No Legally Recognized Answer to Claim
Where a defendant's written statement of defence does not disclose any legally recognized defence to the plaintiff's claim — in particular, where the plaintiff is a registered proprietor and the defence does not bring the case within any of the exceptions to indefeasibility under s.184 of the Registration of Titles Act — the defence ought to be struck out and judgment entered for the plaintiff.
Land & Property — Jus Tertii — Defendant Cannot Rely on Title of Third Party
A defendant in a trespass action cannot rely on jus tertii — the right of a third party. The defendant must defend by the strength of his own title. Where the defendant holds no title and the plaintiff is a registered proprietor, the defendant's reliance on alleged irregularities by government officials or third parties (who are not parties to the suit and not agents of the plaintiff) does not constitute a defence to the action.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (5)

  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (SC CA No. 22 of 1992)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov (No. 3) [1971] EA 514
  • Moya Drift Farm Ltd v Theuri [1973] EA 114
  • United Cultivate Co Ltd v Uganda Properties Ltd (CA No. 1 of 1983)
  • Canas Property Co Ltd v Television Service Ltd [1970] 2 WLR 1133

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Yemima Kamiti v Stephen Busima Masibo (HCT-04-CV-CS-0092-2001) [2002] UGHC 146 (12 July 2002)
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.