THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
LAND DIVISION
CIVIL SUIT NO. HCT-00-LD-CS-0366-2017
NTALO AHMED:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. KEEZI WILSON
2. NAKATO JUSTINE
3. THE COMMISSIONER LAND REGISTRATION
4. NAKABUGO NORAH::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DEFENDANTS
BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE BERNARD NAMANYA
JUDGMENT
Introduction:
1. The plaintiff sued the defendants jointly and severally for: recovery of land
comprised in Kyadondo Block 244 Plot 3401 land at Kisugu measuring
approximately 0.080 Hectares (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”);
cancellation of the 1st defendant’s proprietorship from the suit land; permanent
injunction; general damages; mesne profits; and costs of the suit. The plaintiff
is a biological son and the administrator of the estate of the late Adam Bizigin
Rizigala. The plaintiff claims that, his late father sometime in 1974, purchased
the suit land from a one Amisi Gingo (deceased). That the late Adam Bizigin
Rizigala was supposed to curve off his piece of land from the old chunk of land
known as Plot 267, and register it into his name, but was not able to do so due
to the political turmoil in the 1970s, which led him to flee into exile in Kenya,
where he remained until 2007. It is claimed that, the late Adam Bizigin Rizigala
returned home in 2007, and died two months later at his home in Bombo.
Page 1 of 19
2. The plaintiff having obtained letters of administration, started researching
about his late father's properties, including the suit land. That he discovered that
Plot 267 had been subdivided into Plots 3401 and 3402, and that his father’s
land was part of Plot 3401 which is now owned by the 1st defendant. The
plaintiff then filed this suit against the defendants for fraudulently acquiring his
late father’s land.
3. The defendants denied the plaintiff's allegations. The 1st defendant in his
defence stated that he is the registered proprietor of the suit land, which he
purchased from its former registered owner, Nakato Justine. He denied
committing any acts of fraud. In her defence, the 4th defendant stated that she
is the administrator of the estate of the late Amisi Gingo, and has no interest in
the suit land. She denied selling the suit property or committing any acts of
fraud as alleged by the plaintiff.
Locus in quo visit:
4. On the 23 June 2023, this court carried out a locus in quo visit to the suit land
at Muyenga, Bukasa along the road to Namuwongo in the presence of Ms.
Zawedde Lubwama Lukwago and Mr. John Miti (counsel for the plaintiffs);
Mr. Kizito Ssekitoleko and Ms. Akaijagye Sonia (counsel for the 1st defendant)
and Ms. Nansukusa Rebecca (counsel for the 4th defendant). The plaintiff, Ntalo
Ahmed, was present. The 1st defendant (Keezi Wilson) and 4th defendant
(Nakabugo Norah) were also present.
5. The plaintiff (Ntalo Ahmed), the defendant (Babirye Christine), and the 4 th
defendant (Nakabugo Norah) gave evidence during the locus in quo visit, and
were cross-examined by either counsel. The witnesses confirmed their earlier
evidence before court during the hearing of the case.
Page 2 of 19
6. Court observed that the land is vacant. The 1st defendant lives near the suit land
but on another street. The 1st defendant had in his possession, the duplicate
certificate of title (owner’s copy) which was inspected by court. There was a
pile of bricks and a banana plantation on the suit land.
Representation and hearing:
7. The plaintiffs were represented by Ms. Zawedde Lubwama Lukwago of M/s
Zawedde Lubwama & Co. Advocates. The 1st defendant was represented by
Mr. Kizito Sekitoleko of M/s KBW Advocates while the 4th defendant was
represented by Ms. Nansukusa Rebecca of M/s Makeera & Co Advocates. The
suit proceeded in the absence of the 2nd defendant. The 3rd defendant,
Commissioner for Land Registration, also did not participate in the
proceedings.
The plaintiff’s evidence:
8. The plaintiff produced three witnesses to prove his case: PW1 (Ntalo Ahmed),
PW2 (Hajji Mohammed Birikadde), and PW3 (Babirye Christine).
9. The plaintiffs relied on the following documents:
i). Exh.P1 – Plaint;
ii). Exh.P2 – Certificate of Title for the suit land;
iii). Exh.P3 – Certificate of Title for Plot 3402;
iv). Exp.P4 – Search statement for Plot 3401 dated 22 March 2011;
v). Exh.P5 – Caveat lodged by the plaintiff in 2011;
vi). Exh.P6 – Search statement for Plot 3401 dated 17 October 2016;
vii). Exh.P7 – Notice of motion in Misc. App. No.161 of 2013;
viii). Exh.P8 – Letter dated 28 January 2016 by Semugera & Co Advocates;
ix). Exh.P9 – Letter by the Commissioner for Land Registration dated 12 July
Page 3 of 19
2016;
x). Exh.P10 – Transfer form for Plot 3401; and
xi). Exh.P11 – Letter by the Ministry of Lands, Housing & Urban
Development dated 7 May 2010.
The 1st defendant’s evidence:
10. The 1st defendant produced one witness to prove his case: DW1 (Keezi Wilson).
He relied on the following documents:
i). Exh.D1 – Copy of receipt from Nile Bank Limited dated 12 June 1998
& Letter to the 1st defendant by the Ministry of Lands, Housing & Urban
Development dated 14 April 2010;
ii). Exh.D2 – Letter by the 1st defendant’s lawyers to the Commissioner for
Land Registration dated 29 July 2011;
iii). Exh.D3 – Letter by the 1st defendant’s lawyers to the Ministry of Lands,
Housing & Urban Development dated 24 August 2011;
iv). Exh.D4 – Letter by the 1st defendant’s lawyers to the Solicitor General
dated 10 October 2012;
v). Exh.D5 – Letter by the First Parliamentary Counsel dated 11 February
2013;
vi). Exh.D6 – Written statement of defence in HCCS No.44 of 2013;
vii). Exh.D7 – Letter by the 1st defendant’s lawyers to the Secretary of the
Uganda Land Commission dated 31 August 2015;
viii). Exh.D8 – Letter by the 1st defendant’s lawyers to the Commissioner for
Land Registration dated 1 September 2015;
ix). Exh.D9 – Letter by the 1st defendant’s lawyers to the Commissioner for
Land Registration dated 25 September 2015;
Page 4 of 19
x). Exh.D10 – Letter by the 1st defendant’s lawyers to the Commissioner for
Land Registration dated 3 February 2016;
xi). Exh.D11 – Certificate of Title for Plot 3401 in the 1st defendant’s name;
and
xii). Exh.D12 – Seach statement for Plot 3401 dated 11 September 2019.
The 4th defendant’s evidence:
11. The 4th defendant produced one witness to prove her case: DW2 (Nakabugo
Norah). She relied on the following documents:
i). Exh.D13 – Letters of Administration of the estate of the late Amisi
Gingo;
ii). Exh.D14 – Certificate of title for land at Kyadondo Block 244 Plot 3401
in the name of Justine Nakato; and
iii). Exh.D15 – Certificate of Title for Plot 3402 in the name of
Bukomansimbi Investments Ltd.
Issues to be determined by the court:
12. The parties agreed on the following issues for court’s determination.
i). Whether the suit to recover estate land is barred by the law of limitation?
ii). Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action against the 1 st and 4th
defendants?
iii). Whether registration of the defendants was procured fraudulently?
iv). Whether the 1st defendant is a bona fide purchaser for value without
notice of the alleged interest of the plaintiff’s father.
v). What remedies are available to the parties?
Page 5 of 19
13. I shall address the issues in the following order: Issue No.1 followed by Issue
No.2. Issues No.3 and 4 shall be addressed concurrently; followed finally, by
Issue No.5.
Issue No.1: Whether the suit to recover estate land is barred by the law of
limitation:
14. Counsel for the 1st and 4th defendants submitted that according to Exh.D11
(certificate of title for Plot 3401), Abasi Mugerwa was registered on the 2 April
1984 meaning that if the plaintiff had any cause of action, it began to run on the
2 April 1984, and the 12 years elapsed in 1996.
15. To determine whether or not a suit is time barred, court has to look at all the
facts and peculiar circumstances of the case. Court is enjoined to consider the
pleadings in their entirety. See Charles Lubowa & 4 Others v. Makerere
University SCCA No.2 of 2011 (per Justice Bart Katureebe, J.S.C (as he then
was).
16. According to paragraph 8 of the plaint, the plaintiff claims that his father told
him he bought the suit land from one Amisi Gingo in 1974 which land his late
father utilized until he went into exile in 1979. The plaintiff’s father returned
from exile in 2007. The plaintiff claims that he started pursuing the suit land in
2012 after obtaining letters of administration in respect of his late father’s
estate. That is when he discovered that the suit land had been transferred to
several persons including Abasi Mugerwa, Uganda Land Commission, Nakato
Justine (the 2nd defendant), and most recently Keezi Wilson (the 1st defendant).
17. Section 21 (1) of the Limitations Act (Cap 80) provides that:
“21. Extension of limitation period in case of disability
Page 6 of 19
(1) If on the date when any right of action accrued for which a period
of limitation is prescribed by this Act the person to whom it accrued
was under a disability, the action may be brought at any time before
the expiration of six years from the date when the person ceased to
be under a disability or died, whichever event first occurred,
notwithstanding that the period of limitation has expired”
18. According to the plaint, the plaintiff’s late father lived in exile from 1979 up to
2007 when he returned to Uganda, and shortly thereafter died. The plaintiff
procured letters of administration in 2012, and that it is when he discovered that
his late father’s land was now owned by the 2nd defendant.
19. I am satisfied that the plaintiff’s late father was under disability from 1984 up
to 2007. Time, for purposes of limitation of the cause of action, did not begin
to run until 2007 when the disability ceased. The instant suit was filed in 2017
when the limitation period was yet to expire. Accordingly, the objection raised
by counsel for the 1st and 4th defendants that the suit is time barred is overruled.
Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action against the 1 st and 4th
defendants:
20. Counsel for the 1st and 4th defendants submitted that the suit does not disclose
a cause of action against them.
21. A cause of action is disclosed when it is shown that the plaintiff had a right,
and that right was violated, and that the defendant is liable. It is the law that the
question of whether a plaint discloses a cause of action must be determined
upon perusal of the plaint alone together with any attachments. See the case of
Willy Jagwe v. Bugingo Wilfred, Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No.114 of 2016.
Page 7 of 19
Upon perusal of the plaint in the instant case, under paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 it
was stated that the plaintiff is a biological son of the late Adam Bizigin Rigalla
who claims to have purchased the suit land in 1974. The plaintiff is the
administrator of the estate of his late father. He faults the defendants for
conspiring to defraud him of the suit land, and transferring it to several
proprietors to his detriment, and other beneficiaries of the estate. The facts
show that the plaintiff enjoyed a right as a beneficiary of the estate of his late
father in as far as the suit land is concerned. The suit land which he claims is
part of his father’s estate is registered in the 1st defendant’s name, and faults the
4th defendant for being complicit in the fraud. His right was violated when his
late father’s land, of which he is an administrator, was allegedly taken by
defendants. He blames the defendants for being responsible for violation of his
rights. I am satisfied that the plaintiff has a cause of action against the 1 st and
4th defendants.
Issues No.3 & 4: Whether the 1st defendant obtained registration of the property
through fraud; and whether the 1st defendant is a bona fide purchaser for value
without notice of the alleged interest of the plaintiff’s father
22. The plaintiff asserts that the 1st and 2nd defendants were fraudulently registered
as owners of the suit land; he bears the burden of proof, and this being a fraud
case, the standard of proof is heavier; it is beyond a mere balance of
probabilities. See the case of Kampala Bottlers Ltd v. Damanico (U) Ltd,
Supreme Court Civil Appeal No.22 of 1992 (coram: S.W.W. Wambuzi, C.J., A.
Oder, J.S.C., H. Platt, J.S.C).
23. PW1 (Ntalo Ahmed) testified that his father told him that he bought the suit
land from a one Amisi Gingo in 1974. That at the time of purchase, the land
Page 8 of 19
was located on Block 244 Plot 267 registered in the name of Amisi Gingo. That
he utilized the property, but before he could have it transferred into his name,
he was forced flee to exile due to political turmoil in the 1970s. That his late
father returned from exile in 2007 but he died shortly after awards before he
could pursue recovery of his land. That after the plaintiff obtained letters of
administration of his father’s estate, he discovered from information provided
by local council chairman of Muyenga B Kisugu, Misi Jingo’s widow, and
Nakabugo Nora; that the 2nd defendant had unlawfully procured registration of
the land into her name, and later sold the same to the 1st defendant. That he then
filed the instant suit seeking to recover the land. He further testified that the
ground where the suit land is located bears an old foundation, and a pile of old
bricks which depict the semi-finished building that was built in the late 1970s.
He claims that the semi-finished building was interfered with and disguised to
hide evidence. During his cross-examination, PW1 stated that he does not have
the agreement of purchase for the land. He stated that his father was not
registered on the land, and neither did he register any caveat.
24. PW2 (Hajji Mohammed Birikadde) testified that he is a close friend to the late
Adam Bizigin Rigalla. That the late Adam Bizigin Rigalla used to buy
properties including the one in Muyenga, and would register them in other
people’s names or leave them with caretakers. He stated that the late Adam
Bizgin Rigalla had built a house on the said plot, and there was a lady caretaker
at the property. He stated that he does not know when the deceased bought the
property but he took him to the suit land, as he always did for his various
properties. That after his release from prison in 2010, he confirmed and showed
the children of the deceased, the deceased’s properties which properties have
been redeemed while others are still subject to litigation. He stated that since
Page 9 of 19
he did not know the plot number, he took them to a particular plot at Muyenga,
Kisugu and found the same still vacant, but that the house had been demolished,
with some old bricks and trees still visible. During his cross-examination, he
stated that he did not see the agreement for purchase in respect to the suit land.
That the deceased had a residential house on the suit land. He also stated that
by the time the late Adam Bizigin Rigalla bought the suit land he was not
present, and was not witness to the purchase agreement.
25. PW3 (Babirye Christine) testified that in 1995 she was an information secretary
on the local council 1 committee of Muyenga B Zone 9 where the suit land is
situated. She stated that she once resided next to the suit land, and the late Adam
Bizigin's portion was always vacant, with remains of an unfinished house and
old bricks. She testified that it is the local council committee where she served
as a member, that demolished the semi-finished building because suspected
criminals were using it as hiding ground. She further testified that her evidence
that the plaintiff’s later father, Adam Bizigin Rigalla, is the owner of the suit
land, is based on information received from the 4th defendant. She testified that:
“All the information I got it from Nakabugo.”
Analysis of the plaintiff’s evidence:
26. There are several gaps in the plaintiff’s evidence as noted below. First, PW1
(Ntalo Ahmed) failed to produce a purchase agreement by which his father
acquired the suit land in 1974 from the late Amisi Gingo. Second, the evidence
of PW1 (Ntalo Ahmed) and PW3 (Babirye Christine) is not direct evidence and
offends the rules of evidence. The evidence of PW1 is based on information
obtained from third party sources such as the local council chairman of
Muyenga B Kisugu, his late father, Misi Jingo’s widow, and Nakabugo Nora.
Page 10 of 19
Third, the evidence of PW3 is based on information allegedly received from
the 4th defendant but DW2 (Nakabugo Norah), who is also the 4th defendant,
testified before court, and denied ever being the caretaker of the suit land or
giving any information to PW3. In fact, DW2 testified that the lawful owner of
the land is the 1st defendant. Fourth, PW2 (Hajji Mohammed Barikadde), a
friend of the late Adam Bizigin Rigalla who claimed that he knew most of the
properties and dealings of the plaintiff’s late father did not witness the purchase
of the suit land. Although PW2 claimed that the plaintiff’s late father owned a
house on the suit land that was habitable with residents, this is contradicted by
evidence of PW3 (Babirye Christine) that the house was unfinished, was always
vacant and was a hideout of suspected criminals.
27. As noted above, the evidence adduced by the plaintiff offends the general rule
of evidence that all oral evidence must be direct; the evidence is largely hearsay
that this court cannot rely on. See the case of Arnold Godfrey Kaiza v. Uganda,
Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No.100 of 2012 (Coram: Richard Buteera,
D.C.J., Stephen Musota, JA., and Muzamiru Kibeedi, JA).
28. Section 59 of the Evidence Act (Cap 6) provides that:
“59. Oral evidence must be direct
Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct; that is to say—
(a) if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence
of a witness who says he or she saw it;
(b) if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence
of a witness who says he or she heard it;
(c) if it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense,
or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says
he or she perceived it by that sense or in that manner;
Page 11 of 19
(d) if it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion
is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion
on those grounds […]”
29. It is important to note that the plaintiff's alleged interest in the land was never
registered on the certificate of title for Plot 3401. The registered owners of the
land had no way of knowing the plaintiff’s alleged interest in the land. Exh.P9
is a letter from the Commissioner for Land Registration dated 12 July 2016
responding to the plaintiff’s claim for the suit land; by which the plaintiff was
informed that the purported agreement from which he derives interest in the
suit land was never noted on the land register, and that the suit land is now in
the names of third parties. Part of Exh.P9 reads as follows:
“Since your client’s claim was not registered, it acts interparty and
does not bind the third parties. For this reason, your request to halt
transactions has been denied. [Signed] Sarah Kulata Basangwa,
Commissioner Land Registration”
30. Overall, it is my finding that the plaintiff’s evidence falls far short of the
standard of proof expected in a case of fraud such as the instant one; which is
proof beyond a mere balance of probabilities. See the case of Kampala Bottlers
Ltd v. Damanico (supra).
Analysis of the defendants’ evidence:
31. On the other hand, DW1 (Keezi Wilson) testified that in 1998, he was
approached by a land broker/dealer who showed him land in Muyenga B Zone
Makindye, which was on sale. That he was introduced to the proprietor of the
land, a one Justine Nakato, the 2nd defendant whom he negotiated with and
Page 12 of 19
agreed on a price of Ushs 7,000,000. That the vendor, Nakato Justine informed
him that she had mortgaged the land title to Nile Bank. That he went with the
2nd defendant to Ministry of Lands offices, conducted a search, and confirmed
that the land was registered in the name of the 2nd defendant. That the title also
reflected a mortgage by Nile Bank. That he then went to Nile Bank where the
2nd defendant paid Ushs 6,500,000 (see Exh.D1, deposit slip issued by Nile
Bank) which was part of the purchase price, and the land title was released by
the bank. That thereafter he paid the 2nd defendant her balance in cash, and she
handed over to him the title and signed transfer forms (See Exh.P10). He further
testified that that the 2nd defendant went to the suit land and compensated the
people that were cultivating on the suit land, and thereafter, she handed over
the suit land to him without any encumbrances. He testified that he has been
utilizing the suit land since he bought it in 1998. That when he went back to the
Ministry of Lands to have the land transferred into his name, he was told that
the white page was missing. That he continued checking at the Ministry of
Lands but the white page could not be found, and on 9 December 2009, he wrote
to the Commissioner for Land Registration to make a substitute title but was
informed by the Commissioner for Land Registration that the land was part of
the Namuwongo Government Project that was compulsorily acquired (see
Exh.D1, letter dated 14 April 2010 by Sarah Kulata Basangwa, Commissioner
for Land Registration). That he later discovered that the suit land was not part
of the said Government project. Exh.P11 is a letter dated 7 May 2010 by the
Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban
Development informing the 1st defendant that the suit land is not required by
Government. He was then registered as owner of the land (see Exh.D11,
certificate of title of the suit land showing that the 1st defendant became
Page 13 of 19
registered owner of the land on the 19 August 2016 under Instrument Number
KCCA00031042).
32. It was submitted on behalf of the 1st defendant that he is a bona fide purchaser
for value without notice of any third-party claims. The doctrine of a bona fide
purchaser for value without notice is set out in section 181 of the Registration
of Titles Act (Cap 230):
“181. Purchasers protected
Nothing in this Act shall be so interpreted as to leave subject to an
action of ejectment or to an action for recovery of damages as
aforesaid or for deprivation of the estate or interest in respect to
which he or she is registered as proprietor any purchaser bona fide
for valuable consideration of land under the operation of this Act, on
the ground that the proprietor through or under whom he or she
claims was registered as proprietor through fraud or error or has
derived from or through a person registered as proprietor through
fraud or error; and this applies whether the fraud or error consists
in wrong description of the boundaries or of the parcels of any land
or otherwise howsoever.”
33. It is a fundamental rule that a purchaser of a legal estate for value without notice
has an absolute, unqualified and unanswerable defence against the claims of
any competing title holder. The onus of proof lies on the person putting forward
this plea. It is a single plea, and is not sufficiently made out by proving purchase
for value, and leaving it to the claimant to prove notice if he or she can. The
purchaser must act in good faith. Any sharp or unconscionable conduct may
disentitle a purchaser from putting forward this defence. The purchaser must
Page 14 of 19
undertake a full investigation of title before completing the purchase. In order
to derive benefit from the doctrine, a purchaser must have made all the usual
and proper inquiries, and still found nothing to indicate the interest of a third
party. A purchaser who falls short of this standard cannot not plead that he or
she had no notice of third-party rights which proper due diligence would have
discovered. A purchaser is deemed to have constructive notice of a fact if he or
she had actual notice that there was some incumbrance, and a proper inquiry
would have revealed what it was; or deliberately abstained from inquiry in an
attempt to avoid having notice; or omitted by carelessly or for any other reason,
to make an inquiry which a purchaser acting on skilled advice ought to have
made, and which would have revealed the incumbrance. A purchaser has a duty
to inspect the land and make a full inquiry about anything which appears
inconsistent with the title offered by the vendor. Possession of land that is
inconsistent with a vendor’s tittle constitutes sufficient notice to the purchaser
of the rights of the possessor. See Megarry & Wade: The Law of Real Property,
9th Edition, Stuart Bridge, Elizabeth Cooke and Martin Dixon, Sweet &
Maxwell, London, 2019 at paragraphs 5-005; 5-016-5-023); See also
Mohammed Abdallah Garelnabi v. Diana Irene Nayiga (Civil Appeal No. 231
of 2019) [2022] UGCA 78, the Court of Appeal of Uganda (per Justice
Catherine Bamugemerire, JA).
34. In the case of Yakobo M.N. Senkungu & 4 Others v. Cresensio Mukasa, Civil
Appeal No. 17 of 2014, the Supreme Court of Uganda (per Justice Augustine
S. Nshimye, J.S.C) held that:
“In order for one to seek the protection of Section 181 (supra), he/she
must prove that he/she is a bona- fide purchaser. The purchaser must
Page 15 of 19
act in good faith, ought to have given due consideration and
purchased the land without notice of the fraud.”
35. The doctrine applies to shield an innocent purchaser from any third-party
claims to the land. To benefit from the doctrine of a bona fide purchaser for
value without notice of third-party claims, the 1st defendant must prove the
following essential elements: i) that he acted in good faith; ii) that he undertook
a full investigation of the vendors’ title; and iii) that he undertook a thorough
due diligence on the land, including a thorough inspection of the land, and still
found no equitable interest that was inconsistent with the vendors’ title. See
also my earlier decision in the case of John Kaggwa v. Joseph Kizito Batume
& 8 Others, High Court (Land Division) Civil Suit No.286 of 2017.
36. I have carefully evaluated the evidence adduced by the 1st defendant, and I am
satisfied that he is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of any third-
party claims. The 1st defendant physically inspected the land in 1998, and there
were no developments on the land. The land was vacant, and that fact was
confirmed by PW3 (Babirye Christine) who testified that in 1995, when she
was serving on the local council committee for the area where the suit land is
located, the semi-finished building was demolished because it had become a
hideout for suspected criminals. The 1st defendant also inspected the land
register, and there was only one incumbrance in the form of a mortgage in
favour of Nile Bank, which he dealt with by paying part of the agreed purchase
price directly to the Bank. There was no caveat on the suit land would have
alerted him on the plaintiff’s alleged interest in the land.
37. On the allegation that the 4th defendant conspired with his late brother Abasi
Mugerwa to subdivide Plot 267, and transfer Plot 3401 into his name well
Page 16 of 19
knowing that it belonged to the estate of the late Bizigin Adam Rizigala, the
plaintiff’s father; the 4th defendant denied all such allegations. She testified that
the suit land has never been part of the estate of the late Amis Gingo, and that
by the time she obtained the letters of administration in 1997, the suit land had
already been registered in the names of Abasi Mugerwa in 1984. She testified
that whereas Abasi Mugerwa is her brother, she does not know how he got
registered on the suit land. Exh.D13, the certificate of title shows that Plot 3401
was registered in the names Abasi Mugerwa on the 2 April 1984. At the time,
the 4th defendant did not have any authority over the estate of Amisi Gingo;
which authority she obtained in 1997 as per Exhibit D13, letters of
administration of the estate of the late Amisi Gingo. The plaintiff’s allegations
against the 4th defendant, are therefore without basis, and not supported by any
evidence.
38. The production of a certificate of title is conclusive proof of ownership. Section
59 of the Registration of Titles Act (Cap 230) provides that:
“Certificate to be conclusive evidence of title
No certificate of title issued upon an application to bring land under
this Act shall be impeached or defeasible by reason or on account of
any informality or irregularity in the application or in the
proceedings previous to the registration of the certificate, and every
certificate of title issued under this Act shall be received in all courts
as evidence of the particulars set forth in the certificate and of the
entry of the certificate in the Register Book, and shall be conclusive
evidence that the person named in the certificate as the proprietor of
or having any estate or interest in or power to appoint or dispose of
the land described in the certificate is seized or possessed of that
estate or interest or has that power.”
Page 17 of 19
39. In the case of Kampala Bottlers Ltd v. Damanico (supra), it was held that
“[…] production of the certificate to title in the names of the
appellant is sufficient proof of ownership of the land in question
unless the case falls within the provisions of section 184 of the
Registration of Titles Act.”
40. The plaintiff has failed to prove that his case falls under any of the exceptions
provided for in section 184 of the Registration of Titles Act (Cap 230).
41. Therefore, it is my decision that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the 1st
defendant procured registration as owner of the land fraudulently. The 1 st
defendant has proved that he is the lawful owner of the suit land. The 3 rd and
4th defendants are not culpable for any wrongdoing.
Issue No.3: What remedies are available to the parties?
42. The plaintiff claimed for several reliefs in the plaint but in view of my decision
that the 1st defendant is the lawful owner of the land comprised in Kyadondo
Block 244 Plot 3401 at Kisugu, the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs
sought.
43. The plaintiff’s case is accordingly dismissed. The 1st and 4th defendants are
awarded the costs of the suit which shall be paid by the plaintiff. The 2 nd and
3rd defendants did not participate in the suit and are therefore not entitled to
costs. Exh.D12, search statement dated 11 December 2019, proves that the
plaintiff lodged a caveat on the suit land on the 8 November 2016 under
Instrument No. KCCA-00033551. The 1st defendant is entitled to an order
removing the caveat.
Page 18 of 19
44. In the final result, I enter Judgment with the following declarations and orders:
1). That the plaintiff’s suit against the defendants is dismissed.
2). That the 1st defendant, Keezi Wilson, is the lawful owner of the land
comprised in Kyadondo Block 244 Plot 3401 at Kisugu measuring
approximately 0.080 Hectares.
3). That the Commissioner for Land Registration is directed to remove a
caveat lodged by the plaintiff, Ntalo Ahmed, on land comprised in
Kyadondo Block 244 Plot 3401 at Kisugu.
4). That the plaintiff shall pay the 1st and 4th defendants, the costs of the suit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BERNARD NAMANYA
JUDGE
12 September 2023
Delivered by E-mail:
Ms. Zawedde Lubwama Lukwago
[email protected] Mr. Kizito Sekitoleko
[email protected] Ms. Nansukusa Rebecca
Page 19 of 19
