Land Transactions Kyazze Case Law Notes (Joseph Bill)

LAW PAPERS
2022
THE LAW OF LAND TRANSACTIONS JOSEPH KYAZZE CASE LAW

NOTES.
By Joseph Bill AINERUGABA

The Law of Land Transactions Joseph Kyazze case law notes.
Para. Topic Sub-topic Case Case No.

[1] Bona fide Purchaser for Value Fr. Narsensio Begumisa & 3 Ors v 001
Without Notice Eric Tibebaga
[2] Ndimwibo Sande & 3 Ors v Allen 002
Peace Ampaire
[3] Zion Construction Ltd v Abahaire 003
David & 3 Ors
[4] Adrabo Stanley v Madira Jimmy 004
[5] Kilama Tonny v Laker Caroline & 005
Ors
[6] Features of the Oliver v Hinton 006
[7] doctrine of bona Wormald v Maitland 007
[8] fide purchaser Rosemary Nalubega v Jackson 008
Kikayira
[9] Erisa Lukwago v Bawa Singh & Anor 009
[10] Mudiima Issa & 5 Ors v Elly Kayanja 010
& 2 Ors
[11] Wilkes v Spooner 011
[12] The RTA, Lawful Acquisition of a Global Capital Save 2004 Ltd v Alice 012
Registrable Interest in land and the Okiror and Anor
[13] Concept of Bona fide purchaser for Barclays Bank DCO v Gulu Millers 013
value Limited
Peace Ampaire
[15] Wamono Shem v Equity Bank & 014
Anor
[16] Hilda Wilson Namusoke v Owalla 015
Home Investments Trust (EA) Ltd
[17]
[18]
[19]
David & 3 Ors
[21] Wasswa Siraji & Anor v Tom 016
Luwalira & 2 Ors
[22] Doing a search
[23] Sinba (K) Ltd & Ors v Uganda 017
Broadcasting Corporation (UBC)
[24] Mudiima Issa & 5 Ors v Elly Kayanja 010
& 2 Ors
[25] Amratlal Purshottam Bhimji & Anor 019
v Gian Singh Bhambra
[26]
[27] Purchasing land subject to Teopista Mugenzi v Pascal Bryon 020
encumbrances Mugenzi & Anor
[28] Purchasing matrimonial/family Inid Tumwebaze v Mpeirwe 021
property Stephen & Anor
1|Page
By Joseph Bill Ainerugaba Law Papers ©2022-23
[29] Lamulati Ssanyu Nakanwagi v Hajji 022

Asumani Jjumba & 2 Ors
[30] Land subject to a mortgage • Letshego Uganda Limited v • 023
Felix Kulayigye • 024
• Tororo Steel Works v Betty
Akikoth
Broadcasting Corporation (UBC)
[32] Confirmation of boundaries of the Fr. Narsensio Begumisa & 3 Ors v 001
land Eric Tibebaga
[33] Constance Butamanya v 025
Rwamatsibuza & Ors
[34] Meera Investments Ltd v Sadrdin 026
Gulamhussein & Ors
[35] C. R Patel v Commissioner Land 027
Registration & 2 Ors
[36] Wasswa Siraji & Anor v Tom 016
Luwalira & 2 Ors
David & 3 Ors
[38] Fr. Narsensio Begumisa & 3 Ors v 001
Eric Tibebaga
[39] Silver Byaruhanga v Fr. Emmanuel 028
Ruvugwaho & Anor
[40] Capacity to sell and transfer a Nuwe Amanya Mushega v Charles 029
registrable interest in land Odere
[41] Silver Byaruhanga v Fr. Emmanuel 028
Ruvugwaho & Anor
[42] Nsimbe Holdings Ltd v Attorney 030
General & Anor
Broadcasting Corporation (UBC
[44] John Byekwaso & Anor v Yudaya 031
Ndagire
[45] Non-Performing Assets Recovery 032
Trust v General Parts (U) Ltd
[46] Execution of agreement of sale Mukiibi Joseph v Elitek 033
Technologies International Ltd &
Ors
[47] Wakanyira George David v Ben 034
Kavuya & Ors
[48] Lamusa Magidu v Alamanzani 035
Nsadhu & Anor
[49] Belex Tours and Travel Ltd v Crane 036
[50] Execution of Transfer form & Bank Ltd & Anor
[51] Attestation John Ssemakula v Pope John Paul VI 037
Social Club Ltd
2|Page
[52] Hajji Sulaiman Lule v Zamu 038

Nalumansi Nalongo Ernest & Anor
[53] Nile Bank Ltd v Richard Desmond 053
Kaggwa
[54] Global Capital Save 2004 Ltd v Alice 012
Okiror and Anor
[55] Wakanyira George David v Ben 034
Kavuya & Ors
[56] Valuation and Payment of Stamp Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Anor v 041
Duty & Registration Fees Edward Musisi
[57] Rosemary Nalubega v Jackson 008
Kikayira
[58]
[59]
[60] Haks Express Ltd v Uganda National 042
Roads Authority (UNRA)
[61] Registration on the certificate of title Themi Nakibuuka Sebalu v Peter 043
Sematimba & Ors
[62] Andrew Babigumira v John Magezi 044
[63]
[64]
[65] Effect of Registration on Certificate of Justin E.M.N. Lutaaya v Stirling Civil 045
Title Engineering Co. Ltd
[66] Themi Nakibuuka Sebalu v Peter 043
Sematimba & Ors
[67] Fr. Narsensio Begumisa & 3 Ors v 001
Eric Tibebaga
[68] Title subject to untitled interests Mudiima Issa & 5 Ors v Elly Kayanja 010
& 2 Ors
[69] Impeachment of Certificate of title & Andrew Babigumira v John Magezi 044
[70] Grounds Yakobo M.N. Senkungu & Ors v 046
Cresencio Mukasa
[71] Grace Karuhanga Butare v Ssanyu 047
Mukasa Kyazike
[72] Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico 048
(U) Ltd
[73] Friedrick JK Zaabwe v Orient Bank 049
Ltd & 5 Ors
David & 3 Ors
[75]
[76] Henely Property Developers Ltd v 050
Attorney General
Peace Ampaire
[78] Aketa Farmers and Millers and Anor 051
v Turyamureeba Milton and Anor
3|Page
[79] Hilda Wilson Namusoke v Owalla 015

Home Investments Trust (EA) Ltd
[80] Subdivision of land Zion Construction Ltd v Abahaire 003
David & 3 Ors
[81] The position/legal status of a • John Katarikawe v William • 052
purchaser before transfer Katwiremu & Anor • 001
• Fr. Narsensio Begumisa & 3
Ors v Eric Tibebaga
[82] Asiimwe Mary v Ssemwanga 053
Godfrey
[83]
[84] The Law of Mortgages
[85] Wamono Shem v Equity Bank & 014
Anor
[86] Barclays Bank DCO v Gulu Millers 013
Limited
[87]
[88] Creation of a
[89] legal mortgage
[90] • Non-Performing Assets • 032
Recovery Trust v General • 049
Parts (U) Ltd
• Friedrick JK Zaabwe v
Orient Bank Ltd & 5 Ors
[91] Amratlal Purshottam Bhimji & Anor 019
v Gian Singh Bhambra
[92] • Belex Tours and Travel Ltd v • 036
Crane Bank Ltd & Anor • 039
• Nile Bank Ltd v Richard
Desmond Kaggwa
[93] East Africa Foam Limited v Attorney 054
General & Ors
[94]
Okiror and Anor
[96] Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Anor v 041
Edward Musisi
[97] Meera Investments Ltd v Sadrdin 026
Gulamhussein & Ors
[98]
[99] • Wamono Shem v Equity • 014
Bank & Anor • 055
• Boney Mwebesa
Katatumba and 3 Ors v
Shumuk Springs
Development Ltd and 3 Ors
Okiror and Anor
4|Page
[101] Equitable Uganda Ecumenical Church Loan 056

Mortgage Fund Ltd v Nankabirwa Harriet
[102]
[103] Nile Bank Ltd v Richard Desmond 039
Kaggwa
[104] • Uganda Ecumenical Church • 056
Loan Fund Ltd v • 039
Nankabirwa Harriet
• Nile Bank Ltd v Richard
Desmond Kaggwa
[105] Leasehold GAPCO Uganda Ltd v Kaweesa 057
Badru & Anor
[106] Greenboat Entertainment Ltd v City 058
Council of Kampala
[107] Statutory Leases Musisi Gabriel v Edco Ltd & Anor 059
[108] Leases on public
[109] land Nyumba Ya Chuma Ltd v Uganda 060
Land Commission and Anor
[110] St. Benedict Buwama S.S Ltd v Mary 061
Nayita Musoke
[111] Nyumba Ya Chuma Ltd v Uganda 060
Land Commission and Anor
[112]
[113]
[114] St. Benedict Buwama S.S Ltd v Mary 061
Nayita Musoke
[115] Andrew Kawuki v Jackson 062
Semaganyi
[116]
[117] Kampala District Land Board and 063
Anor v National Housing and
Construction Corporation
[118] Alex Agandru v Etoma Francis 064
[119] Leases on Greenboat Entertainment Ltd v City 058
privately owned Council of Kampala
[120] land Alex Agandru v Etoma Francis 064
[121] Evergreen Fields Uganda Ltd v 065
Bernard Tungwako & Anor
[122]
[123]
5|Page
Case 001
Fr. Narsensio Begumisa & 3 Ors v Eric Tibebaga
Civil Appeal No. 17 / 2002
Court: Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo
Sourced by: < https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court-uganda/2004/18 >
Principle: [1] Bona fide Purchaser for Value Without Notice – Common Law in Uganda is
applicable by virtue of s. 14 of the Judicature Act. However, its applicability is
restricted to the extent which it doesn’t conflict with written law in Uganda.
In so far as registered land is concerned the Registration of Titles Act (Cap. 230)
(RTA) and other applicable legislations supersede any contrary principle of
common law.
The doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value without notice at common law may
apply in Uganda to the extent to which its principles aren’t inconsistent with
written law.
At common law, a deed system was operational in a sense that acquisition of an

interest in land was by virtue of an executed deed rather than a certificate of title.
On the contrary, under the RTA, acquisition of an interest in registered land is by
registration on a certificate of title. [s. 54 & s. 59 RTA]
[32] Confirmation of boundaries of the land – The certificate of title contains a

description of the land, its location and acreage. The position of the law is that the
description of the land on the title must correspond with the land on ground in
terms of location and acreage.
[38] Confirmation of boundaries of the land – The certificate of title is deemed to be

conclusive evidence of the proprietorship of the land under s.59 of the RTA.
[67] Effect of Registration on Certificate of Title – The certificate of title then

becomes conclusive evidence that the person registered there is the owner of the
land described in the title. S.59 of the RTA.
6|Page
[81] The position/legal status of a purchaser before transfer – The position of the
law is that the purchase does not confer/pass any legal interest in favour of the
purchaser except upon registration of a proper instrument under the RTA. (S.54 of
the RTA read together with s.59)
Brief facts:
The respondent bought a parcel of land as a customary holding from two persons who were
migrating from the area. In 1965, he applied for a registered title of land. The adjudication
committee and the government surveyors respectively verified and surveyed the land, after
which he was granted a certificate of title. The appellants pleaded that they were the rightful
customary owners of the land which was different from and located 2-3 km away from the
land described in the certificate of title. They also pleaded that the respondent owns un-
surveyed 2-acre piece adjacent to the suit land.
Issue:
Whether the certificate of title relates to the suit land.
Held:
➢ The respondent had the burden to prove his ownership of the suit land, and opted to
principally rely on the certificate of title.
➢ Th certificate of title under the RTA is conclusive evidence that the person named in
the certificate as proprietor is possessed of the estate in the land described in the
certificate. [para. 38]
➢ The respondent conclusively proved that he is the registered proprietor on the face of
it by producing in evidence the certificate of title of the land described in the said
certificate. However, the suit land did no tally with the particulars of the certificate
produced in evidence.
➢ The inviolability of a certificate of title under the RTA is hinged on a survey that
determines and delimits the land to which the certificate relates. The court cannot
receive the title in evidence of particulars which are not set forth in it and the
respondent fell short of proving that particulars of title relate to the suit land on the
ground. [para. 32]
7|Page
Case 002
Ndimwibo Sande & 3 Ors v Allen Peace Ampaire
Civil Appeal No. 65/2011
Court: Court of Appeal at Kampala
Sourced by: < https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/court-appeal-uganda/2014/46 >
Principle: [2] Bona fide Purchaser for Value Without Notice – It follows thereby that under the
RTA no person can claim legally to be a bona fide purchaser for value without
notice of registered land except if they are registered as proprietors of the subject
land. It is a mandatory requirement for one to be on the title to claim that they are
bona fide purchasers for value without notice.
[14] The RTA, Lawful Acquisition of a Registrable Interest in land and the Concept
of Bona fide purchaser for value – Any acquisition of a lawful interest in land under
the operation of the RTA must be in accordance with the provisions therein.
[77] Impeachment of Certificate of title & Grounds – Defence of Bonafide Purchaser

for Value under the RTA – Where fraud is pleaded against a registered proprietor,
the defence available to the registered proprietor is that of bona fide purchaser for
value without notice. In order to succeed in that defence, the defendant must prove
the following;
a) That he is possession of a genuine authentic COT.

b) That he’s currently registered as proprietor of the suit land.
c) He/she acquired the suit land for a valuable consideration.
d) He/she acquired the land in good faith.
e) He/she had no notice of any preexisting interests nor any notice of the
claimants’ interests.
f) He/she was not privy to the alleged fraud.
Issue:
Whether the respondent is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
8|Page
Held:
➢ It suffices to describe a bona fide purchaser as a person who honestly intends to

purchase the property offered for sale and does not acquire it wrongly. For a purchaser
to successfully rely on the bona fide doctrine must prove that;
a) He holds a certificate of title
b) He purchased the property in good faith
c) Had no knowledge of the fraud
d) He purchased for valuable consideration
e) The vendors had apparent title
f) He purchased without notice of any fraud.
➢ The doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value without notice is a statutory defence
available only to the person registered as proprietor under the RTA. It is not an
equitable remedy although it stems from common law. it would not even qualify as a
remedy for it is only a defence by a person registered as proprietor under the RTA.
[para. 14]
Case 003
Zion Construction Ltd v Abahaire David & 3 Ors
HCCS No. 241/2015
Court: High Court of Uganda at Kampala
Sourced by: < https://old.ulii.org/ug/judgment/hc-land-division/2017/5 >
Principle: [3] Bona fide Purchaser for Value Without Notice – It follows therefore that under
the deed system applicable at common law a purchaser was required to cause a
search and an inquiry into all the predecessors in the title of the subject land.
Under the RTA the inquiry is restricted to the registrar maintained by the land
office.
[19] The RTA, Lawful Acquisition of a Registrable Interest in land and the Concept
of Bona fide purchaser for value – Challenges – b) Person with both certificates of
title and special certificate of title can use both of them to transact.
9|Page
How to know: Whenever a special certificate of title is issued, it is used on a white

page which alerts you that a special certificate of title was issued. Where there is
a special certificate of title and the white page doesn’t show, there’s a red flag.
Read a vendor’s agreement with a negative approach.
[20] Where land is transferred from blue page to white page, the interest on a blue
page is extinguished and should be closed. In Zion (supra), the interest was
transferred from the blue page and not closed and other people claimed these. It
was held that it should have been closed by the registrar.
The entries on the white page must ordinarily correspond with the entries on the
duplicate certificate of title (DCT). WHY? Because the White page is the original.
[37] Confirmation of boundaries of the land – Upon issuance of a special certificate

of title, a notification to the same effect is indicated on the white page and
transaction will lawfully be conducted using the special certificate of title whose
contents must be in tandem with the white page.
[74] Impeachment of Certificate of title & Grounds – Fraud may be actual,

constructive or imputed the underlying principle being that it should be proved
against the current registered proprietor.
[80] Subdivision of land – Where a purchaser is interested in acquiring part of the

land, the following procedure is adopted;
a) The agreement of sale must reflect the specific acreage being acquired by the
purchaser.
b) It is also prudent to attach a sketch delineating/demarcating the location of the
land acquired.
c) The registered proprietor is required to execute a mutation form which
constitutes an instrument authorizing the subdivision of the land.
d) A surveyor who is certified and licensed must be engaged to cause a boundary
opening and sub-division of the land on the ground upon issuance of an
instruction to survey by the relevant district staff surveyor/commissioner
surveys and mappings.
10 | P a g e
e) A survey requires approval of the relevant planning authority in accordance

with the Physical Planning Act.
f) The surveyor will then process deed prints and the plot number will be allocated
to the new title and the residue.
Brief facts:
The plaintiff company purchased the suit land from a one Michael Kalibala Nteyafa who was
the registered proprietor by virtue of letters of administration for the estate of Apollo Kalibala
Nteyafa. Thereafter the plaintiff caused the suit land to be subdivided into several plots. The
plaintiff learned that the 1st respondent had lodged a complaint with the Commissioner Land
Registration (CLR) who initiated the process of cancellation of the subdivided titles and
instituted a case seeking various remedies.
Issue:
Whether the plaintiff lawfully acquired the suit land and was lawfully registered as proprietor
thereof.
Held:
➢ The evidence showed that the plaintiff had through the Managing Director done a
physical inspection of the land and no person during the inspection ever came up to
claim any interest. That the plaintiff too caused a search in the CLR offices and
obtained a search letter which showed there were no encumbrances at all thus showing
that the vender was clothed with necessary legal authority to sell the land.
➢ The duplicate certificate of title held by the plaintiff and the white page were created
by the land office but the blue page was not closed after creation of the white page. The
allegation that the suit land formed part of the P. U. P (Part of Unascertained Parcel)
as having no legal basis. Production copies of the blue page in evidence only had the
effect of showing that the 3rd defendant had the duty to close the blue page upon
creation of the white page for plot 24. The omission to do so could not be blamed on
the plaintiff nor could it be an era warranting cancellation of a white page already
subdivided. Most importantly, since plot 24 which sought to be cancelled no longer
11 | P a g e
exited there was nothing to revert to a blue page other than just closing it. [para. 20]
[para. 80]
➢ PW1 proceeded and caused a search in the 3rd defendant’s office and obtained a search
letter. The particulars thereon correspond with the entries on the special certificates of
title. [para. 20]
➢ The evidence adduced by the plaintiff has successfully demonstrated that the suit land
was subject of a valid title (special certificate of title) in the names of the plaintiff’s
predecessors in title who had been duly registered. [para. 37]
➢ The 4th defendant had the burden to prove the particular allegations that the
acquisition of title by the plaintiff’s predecessor in title was tainted with illegalities and
fraud. Fraud must be attributable to the transferee, either directly or by necessary
implication. The transferee must be guilty of some act or must have known of such act
by somebody else and participated in or taken advantage of it. [para. 74]
Case 004
Adrabo Stanley v Madira Jimmy
Civil Suits No. 24/2013
Court: High Court of Uganda at Arua
Sourced by: < https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/hc-land-division-uganda/2017/102 >
Principle: [4] Bona fide Purchaser for Value Without Notice – Under the deed system an
extensive search into the proprietorship of the previous owners was required in
order for anyone to claim to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The
burden therefore lay on the person claiming to be bona fide that a sufficient inquiry
was made and there was no indication of pre-existing adverse interests.
Brief facts:
The plaintiff claiming to be the registered proprietor of the land and having acquired it by
way of purchase from the Non-Performing Assets Trust (NPART) the previous registered owner
having defaulted on the mortgage from the now defendant Uganda Commercial Bank (UCB).
Without the plaintiff’s permission the defendant entered onto the land, established thereon
12 | P a g e
a livestock farm and cut down the plaintiff’s trees. The defendant contended that the land he
occupies lies outside that claimed by the plaintiff and that he lawfully acquired it from
previous customary owners by way of purchase.
Held:
➢ The defendant does not deny in his counterclaim and defence that the plaintiff did act
bona fidely when he got registered. If there were any irregularities by the previous
owners, they cannot be visited on the plaintiff and do not constitute fraud which would
justify cancellation of the title. On the contrary, the plaintiff is saved from those
irregularities if any by the provision of s. 59 of the RTA.
➢ Historically, confirming ownership of land required one to check the documents
transferring title to the land, for several prior transactions. This was known as the
deed system. under that system, even though a person appeared to be the owner of
the land, the purchaser was not entitled to rely on the registry and had to confirm that
the person selling the property was the rightful owner of the property.
In the Torrens system, a purchaser does not need to search back through each
previous transfer. Instead, the purchaser can rely on whatever name shows on the
land title at the land registry. If the title deed shows the person as the owner, the
purchaser can by virtue of s. 59 of the RTA buy the property from that owner without
worrying about how that person became owner.
Under the Torrens system, security of title is based on the four (4) principles of i)
indefeasibility (cannot be impeached) ii) registration (title by registration) iii) the
curtain principle (abolition of notice or exhaustive inquiry) and iv) assurance
(compensation upon detrimental reliance).
Case 005
Kilama Tonny v Laker Caroline & Ors
Civil Appeal No. 021 of 2017
Court: High Court of Uganda at Gulu
Sourced by: < https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/high-court-uganda/2020/171 >
13 | P a g e
Principle: [5] Bona fide Purchaser for Value Without Notice – para 4 (supra)
Brief facts:
The appellant sued the respondents for recovery of land under customary tenure and that
the land originally belonged to his grandfather who acquired it in 1920 while vacant and it
was inherited by the appellant’s father and was granted a lease thereon. That the land was
acquired by his mother-in-law by which they were displaced by the insurgency and handed
back the land in 2007. The respondent later caused destruction of the property claiming
ownership and disputed the ownership of the of the appellant’s father.
Held:
➢ The three fundamental principles which underline the title registration system and
generally accepted are; the mirror principle (that the register reflects accurately and
completely all of the current facts material to the title); the curtain principle (that the
register is the sole source of information necessary for the purchaser. The register
contains all the information about the title; a historical search behind the register to verify
that the title is good is unnecessary); and the insurance principle (that anyone who suffers
a loss should be compensated. Compensation is for loss of rights if there are any errors
made by the Registrar of Titles about the validity or accuracy of title).
➢ The general rule is that an owner of a titled land duly registered takes the property free
from minor interests that have not been duly registered even if he or she knows of the
existence of such interests.
Case 006
Oliver v Hinton
[1899] 2 Ch. 264
Principle: [6] Bona fide Purchaser for Value Without Notice – Features of the doctrine of bona
fide purchaser – A person claiming to be a bona fide purchaser for value without
notice is required to prove the following;
a) The acquisition of the interest in the subject property was in good faith. What
amounts to good faith is a question of fact.
14 | P a g e
Held:
➢ When two years after the deposit of the title deeds, the owner executed a conveyance
of the property to a purchaser, whose agent never asked to see the deeds, the equities
of the case depended on whether the purchaser had acted with such gross negligence
that she had to be postponed to the to the equitable rights of the charge.
➢ In order that a purchaser for value, who has acquired a legal estate without notice of
a prior equitable mortgage of the property, may be postponed to that mortgage, it is
not necessary to show that he has been guilty of fraud or negligence amounting to
fraud; it is sufficient that he has been guilty of negligence so gross as to render it unjust
to deprive the prior mortgage of his priority.
Case 007
Wormald v Maitland
(1866) 35 L. J. Ch. 69 at 73
fide purchaser – b) The claimant must equally adduce evidence to prove that they
acquired the land for value/valuable consideration. The consideration may be in
form of money or value for money.
It is not a requirement that the consideration be adequate as long as it is sufficient.
Held:
➢ Acquiring land in contemplation of entering into a particular marriage was considered

sufficient value. The marriage was however, only extends to future as opposed to past
marriage.
Case 008
Rosemary Nalubega v Jackson Kikayira
Civil Reference Appeal No. 40/2004
fide purchaser – c) The claimant must prove that they acquired a legal
15 | P a g e
interest/estate in the land which has since been perfected by the registration of
the deed. Where the claimant bases the claim on an unregistered deed, priority in
terms of competing interests is accorded to the first in time. [See: Mustafa
Ndiggejjerawa V. Sebane Kizito [1953] 7 ULR 31]
[57] Valuation and Payment of Stamp Duty & Registration Fees – s. 54: No
instrument can pass interest in land unless registered.
Held:
➢ Okello JA; “The Eria Musoke had by an agreement of sale Ex 2 in 142 bought a piece
of land measuring 6.33 acres from the late Tito Lukanika. After executing the sale
agreement no transfer was affected in the names of the buyer, the late Erisa Musoke
lodged a caveat on the title of the late Tito Lukanika on 22/12/1932 in order to protect
his interest. The caveat prohibited any dealing with the land before the interest of
Musoke was satisfied”
“There was evidence that the interests of the estate of the late Erisa Musoke had not
been satisfied. There was evidence that after purchasing the land the late Erisa took
possession of it, he and his children made developments on it. The evidence of their
occupation of the land after the purchase supports the trial judge’s finding that the
respondent and his siblings were bona fide occupants of the land.”
Case 009
Erisa Lukwago v Bawa Singh & Anor
1969 EA 282
fide purchaser – d) The claimant must prove that the acquisition of their interest
was not subject to any notice of any pre-existing interest. Notice may be actual,
constructive or imputed. Under s. 136 of the RTA, the doctrine of notice does not
apply and can’t be a basis to impeach a title of a registered proprietor.
Brief facts:
16 | P a g e
When the plaintiff’s father died, he held a kibanja on the land of the 2nd defendant. The
plaintiff succeeded the father on the kibanja but since he was a minor, the rent was paid
for him by his uncle and guardian. The guardian’s sister with the permission occupied the
house. The 2nd defendant increased the rent which the guardian did not agree to. The 2nd
defendant then leased the kibanja to the 1st defendant and gave notice to the guardian’s
sister to vacate, but she claimed compensation. The 2nd defendant gave her shs. 400/-
which she refused. The 2nd defendant’s agent entered onto the land and with the help of the
1st defendant’s labourers demolished the house.
Held:
➢ The plaintiff was not at the time when the house was demolished a ‘mukopi’ within the
meaning of Busuulu and Envujo Law and as such his rights over the land could only
be terminated in accordance with the law.
➢ The plaintiff’s rights over the plot had never been extinguished at the time when the
house was demolished and that he was in lawful possession thereof.
➢ The 1st defendant had a valid lease over the plot, but under the RTA s. 61 (now s.59)
his title was subject to the interest of any tenant on the land.
Case 010
Mudiima Issa & 5 Ors v Elly Kayanja & 2 Ors
Civil suit 232/2009
Principle: [10] Para. 9 (supra)
[24] Doing a search - Other than a search at the land registry it is prudent for
intending purchaser/interested party to cause a physical inspection of the subject
land whose purpose is to ascertain;
1. Whether the land physically exists
2. Whether land is located in the area described in the title.
17 | P a g e
3. Who is in occupation/possession of the land.
4. What are the physical encumbrances on the land.
[68] Title subject to untitled interests – However the certificate of title (COT) though
conclusive proof of ownership may be subjected to the unregistered interests that
affect the title even if they aren’t reflected on title. These include;
a) Interests of bibanja holders
b) easements
c) Rights of access, etc.
See: s. 64
Brief facts:
A one Kikomeko Cephas was granted a lease by ULC on the suit land for 5 years but the lease
was vehemently opposed by the occupants of the suit land on grounds of fraud which resulted
into several deaths including of Kikomeko. The 3rd defendant obtained letters of
administration of the estate of Kikomeko and got registered on the title but her registration
was too was vehemently opposed. The plaintiff’s held several meetings with the first defendant
who was then holding a senior position in the security to help them sort the dispute but were
later surprised to learn that the 1st defendant had instead bought the land for shs. 10m and
consequently forcefully evicted them.
Held:
➢ The 1st and 2nd defendant acted fraudulently in obtaining the registration on the land.
They did not carry out the necessary due diligence to establish the interests of the
plaintiffs existing on the suit land before they purchased it.
➢ The 1st defendant in particular was put on notice in earlier meetings with the plaintiffs
of the subsisting dispute over ownership with the 3rd defendant. His actions were
dishonest amounting to actual fraud and were calculated to deceive the plaintiffs.
➢ The 1st and 2nd defendants did not physically inspect the suit land before buying it and
also did not carry out any survey and that if they had done so they would have found
that the plaintiffs were bona fide or lawful occupants on the suit land. The defendants’
18 | P a g e
evidence itself confirms that he has never carried out any survey nor reopened
boundaries because he stated that he was prevented from by the plaintiffs who turned
out violent. [para. 24] [para. 68]
Case 011
Wilkes v Spooner
(1911) 2 KB 473
fide purchaser – Successor in title; A purchaser of a legal interest claiming to be a
bona fide purchaser is not bound by the inequities of his predecessor in title. A
successor in title who does not acquire the interest for valuable consideration by
way of gift takes subject to the inequities of the predecessor in title.
Brief facts:
A lessee of premises (L) upon which the lessee conducted his business as a general butcher,
contained a covenant by which L covenanted not to carry out any or offensive trade other
than that of a butcher. He was also a lessee in different premises in the same street which
were used for the same purposes. L sold his interest in the latter premises to the claimant
(C) covenanting with C that he would not use the former premises for the same purposes.
The landlord granted a new lease to L’s son who set up a competing business.
Issue;
Whether a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and without notice can give a good
legal title to a subsequent purchaser who is fixed with notice of some pre-existing equity
affecting the property.
Held:
➢ The appeal was dismissed that under the circumstances of the case, the landlord did
not have constructive notice of L’s covenant and consequently could grant his son a
lease free of the restriction of that covenant.
Case 012
19 | P a g e
Global Capital Save 2004 Ltd v Alice Okiror and Anor
Civil Appeal No. 151/2012 (Arising from High Court Civil Suit No. 149/2010)
Court: Court of Appeal of Uganda at Kampala
Principle: [12] The RTA, Lawful Acquisition of a Registrable Interest in land and the Concept
of Bona fide purchaser for value – Uganda operates under a Torren system which
is a system of ownership of land or an interest in land by registration. The principal
legislation is the RTA and under s. 2 thereof takes precedence over any other Act
or rule to the contrary in matters relating to the land under the Act.
[54] Para. 53 (supra)
[95] The Law of Mortgages – Where the mortgage instrument is not properly
executed and/or attested, it may be declared to be invalid as a mortgage
instrument save that it may operate as a contract inter parties.
[100] Where the mortgage is not registered it cannot be enforced as a legal

mortgage and the statutory rights and remedies accruing to a mortgage cannot be
involved. However, it is enforceable as a contract between the parties.
Brief facts:
The plaintiffs (respondents on appeal) took out a loan from the defendants (appellants on
appeal) and secured it with the suit land. They contended that they paid back the loan but
the defendants first denied that they accepted the certificate of title used to secure the loan
and that the plaintiff failed to pay the loan in full.
Held:
➢ The document which the parties signed on doubled as a mortgage deed and as a loan
agreement and as such was not properly executed within the provisions of the RTA.
(Applicable at the time)
Case 013
20 | P a g e
Barclays Bank DCO v Gulu Millers Limited
1959 EA 541
of Bona fide purchaser for value – The wording of the Act excludes the applicability
of common law and equity in so far as they are inconsistent with the RTA. See; s.
136.
[86] The Law of Mortgages – The Mortgage Act is not exhaustive on the law of
Mortgages. This implies that reference may be made to other applicable
legislations.
Brief facts:
The respondent company had deposited with the appellant bank certain documents of title
to leasehold land at Gulu and had at the same time executed a “Memorandum of Deposit of
Documents/Title” in which it stated that it had deposited the title deeds “with interest to
create a lien/equitable mortgage/charge” upon all the property comprised therein for the
securing the payment on demand of all the moneys due from the respondent company to the
appellant bank. In consequence of a failure by the respondent company to pay the appellant
bank the moneys due under the mortgage, the appellant bank sued in the High Court for a
declaration that it was entitled to be considered as the legal mortgagee of the land comprised
in the certificate of title deposited.
Held:
➢ It could not have been the intention of the legislature that equitable mortgages created
under s. 138 of the Registration of Titles Ordinance should be unenforceable, and as
no method of enforcement was enacted, it must have been the intention that an
equitable mortgage should have any remedies open to him under the general law, so
as far as these were not inconsistent with the Registration of Titles Ordinance or other
enactment.
Case 014
Wamono Shem v Equity Bank & Anor

21 | P a g e
Miscellaneous Application No. 600/2012
Sourced by: < https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/commercial-court-uganda/2013/98 >
of Bona fide purchaser for value – However the RTA is not exhaustive and recourse
may be had to other relevant legislations that may be acquired e.g., Mortgage Act
s. 44 which repealed all provisions in the RTA that related to mortgages (s. 115-
128 repealed).
[85] The Law of Mortgages – The principal legislation governing legal, equitable
and informal Mortgages is the Mortgage Act, 2009. The effect is the Act governs
validity of mortgages executed after its commencement. Those executed before are
governed by the “repealed” sections of the RTA by the Mortgage Act, 2009.
[99] The Law of Mortgages – Where the mortgaged property is matrimonial

property, it is a mandatory requirement to obtain the consent of the spouse of the
mortgagor living in that matrimonial home. The consent must be in writing. The
consent required must be informed and genuine consent subject to advice from an
independent person. See: s.5 & 5 of the Mortgage Act, 2009.
Brief facts:
The plaintiff’s case was that he did not consent to the property which he claimed to be family
property being subject of a mortgage by the 2nd respondent, his wife to the 1st respondent
bank. The 1st respondent claimed to have carried out due diligence before granting the
mortgage and that the 2nd respondent was unmarried at the time.
Held:
➢ The particular requirement under s.5 which puts the duty on the mortgage to take
reasonable steps to ascertain whether an intending mortgagor is married and whether
or not the property to be mortgaged is a matrimonial home is inapplicable. The
transaction complained about occurred before the coming into force of the Mortgage
Act, 2009.
22 | P a g e
➢ According to Statutory Instrument 2011 No. 44 namely the Mortgage Act, 2009
(Commencement) Instrument, 2011, the Minister of Lands, Housing and Urban
Development exercising powers under s.1 of the Mortgage Act appointed the 2nd day of
September, 2011 as the date on which the Act came into force. Consequently, any
duties ad obligations at the time of execution of the mortgage in question were under
the Mortgage Act Cap. 229.
Case 015
Hilda Wilson Namusoke v Owalla Home Investments Trust (EA) Ltd
SCCA No.15/2017
Court: Supreme Court of Uganda
of Bona fide purchaser for value – s. 91 of the Land Act empowers the CLR to
cancel a certificate of title on grounds of it being issued in error/illegally. In the
RTA, commissioner didn’t have such powers.
[79] Impeachment of Certificate of title & Grounds – Defence of Bona fide Purchaser
for Value under the RTA – Other grounds for cancellation of a title are set out in s.
91 of the Land Act.
Brief facts:
The CLR issued a notice of cancellation of the appellant’s certificate of title on grounds that
it was fraudulently obtained.
Held:
➢ S. 37 of the Land (Amendment) Act, 2004 introduced the current s. 91(2) of the Land
Act which provides grounds under which the CLR can cancel a certificate of title to
include; certificates issued in error, endorsements made in error, endorsements
obtained or retained wrongfully and certificates bearing misdescription of land
boundaries.
23 | P a g e
[17] The RTA, Lawful Acquisition of a Registrable Interest in land and the Concept of Bona fide
purchaser for value – Land in Uganda bought under the operation of the RTA is deemed to be
registered land. Initial Mile Register Volumes MRU were issued to persons owning Mailo land.
However, subsequently there was a change in recording interests inland that created the plot
and block system.
The description changed from MRV to block and plot numbers e.g the blocks were determined
according to the counties in Buganda.
N.B. Take interest in the description of land in question. The description specifies the land office
to go to;
a) They want to know where to do inspection
b) Where to cause a search
Mailo land was allocated to quite a number of individuals and it remained unascertained on
account of want of survey.
The registration would then be affected on the blue page which only identifies the owners and
the acreage but not the description because land hasn’t been surveyed but once it is surveyed
they got a description and it was transferred to a white page.
The certificates of title created in respect of land under the operation of the RTA are principaaly
2:
i) White Page (Original); It remains in the land office i.e., which means it is the master copy.
ii) Duplicate certificate (owner’s copy)
When the duplicate is lost, they only replace it with a special certificate of title. You can’t have
a 2nd duplicate and whoever has it, it is useless.
When a White page is lost, they create a substitute page.
Challenges
[18] a) Creating a substitute page, white page is recovered not in the same location people use
both of them to transact.
24 | P a g e
[19] b) Person with both certificates of title and special certificate of title can use both of them
to transact.
How to know: Whenever a special certificate of title is issued, it is used on a white page which
alerts you that a special certificate of title was issued.
Where there is a special certificate of title and the white page doesn’t show, there’s a red flag.
Read a vendor’s agreement with a negative approach.
See; Wagaba Mulagwe V. Hajji Juma Bisaso & Anor CACA No. 53/2020 (Discusses blue page;
a kibanja owner can’t be on a blue page)
See also; Zion Construction Ltd v Abahaire David & 3 Ors (HCCS No. 241/2015) {Case 003}
Case 016
Wasswa Siraji & Anor v Tom Luwalira & 2 Ors
Court: In the Court of Appeal of Uganda
of Bona fide purchaser for value – For principle, there should be consistency on
description in white page and duplicate.
[36] Para. 35 (supra)
Brief facts:
The plaintiffs claimed that registered land title in respect of the suit land in the names of the
2nd respondent was procured fraudulently. The plaintiffs who were the appellants in their
appeal claimed to be registered proprietors of the suit property since 18981 having bought it
from a one Hajati Hawa Nampima, administratrix of the estate of the of the deceased and
that they had not sold the land to anybody let alone the respondents. The 1st respondent filed
a suit against Hajati Nampima to have the property transferred back to the deceased but
later entered into a consent judgement. The plaintiffs’ claim that at the time of the consent
25 | P a g e
judgement the land was not available for transfer since it had already been transferred into
their names and that the 1st respondent colluded with the 2nd respondent to create a fake
title.
Held:
➢ A special certificate of title does not replace a duplicate in the particulars. It only
physically contains the same information in another certificate of title called the special
certificate of title. It is issued in place of the lost duplicate certificate of title.
Technically, it is not a replacement of title but of the owner’s copy of the certificate of
title issued in another document with exactly the same information on the footing that
the duplicate certificate of title is lost or destroyed.
[22] Doing a search
Qn. You’re an advocate and a client want to purchase land and wants you to register in their
name.
Steps;
a) Land under the operation the RTA is owned by virtue of registration on the certificate of
title.
b) The first step in exercise of due diligence is to cause a search at the relevant registry of
land office to ascertain the following:
i) The current registered proprietor;
ii) The date and instrument under which they were registered;
iii) The acreage of the land;
iv) The description of the land;
v) The location of the land;
vi) Whether or not there is an encumbrance on the land;
vii) The type of certificate of title issued to the owner.
Case 017
Sinba (K) Ltd & Ors v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (UBC)
SCCA No. 03/2014

26 | P a g e
Court: In the Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala
Principle: [23] Doing a search – s. 201 of the RTA provides for official searches to be obtained
at a cost.
[31] (Supra) Land subject to a mortgage – 4.0 Land/property may be lawfully

purchased under a sale by court in execution of a decree. The purchaser must
cause a due diligence to confirm that the legal procedures applicable to a sale by
court action have been compiled with. The transfer instrument is executed by the
court or officer appointed by the court.
[43] Capacity to sell and transfer a registrable interest in land – Where land is
registered in the names of statutory corporation, the sale and transfer must be
concluded in accordance with the provisions establishing that corporation. (See:
s.6 of the UBC Act)
Brief facts:
The respondent sold to the Haba Group (U) Ltd (2nd appellant) the suit property on 14th Feb,
2011 and three months later the 2nd appellant sold the said property to Deo and Sons (3rd
appellant) under a sale agreement dated 6th May, 2011. The 3rd appellant was registered on
the title on 31st May, 2011. Subsequently, the respondent’s Managing Director (MD) wrote to
the CLR after terminating the sale agreement with the 2nd appellant to de-register the 3rd
appellant from the title and reinstate the respondent. The 3rd appellant filed a suit against
the respondent for damages and the respondent filed a counterclaim that the sale of the
property was in contravention of the UBC Act and thus illegal.
Held:
➢ The 5th appellant did not make any effort to ascertain/establish the ownership of the
land. Furthermore, the speed with which the transaction was affected particularly at
the land registry raises suspicion of collusion. The land had a checkered history right
from the sale to the 2nd appellant and it is inconceivable that she could part with such
27 | P a g e
huge sums of money without carrying out a search at the Lands Registry to verify the
ownership of the land.
➢ The sale was by a court appointed bailiff and the 5th appellant had no opportunity to
establish the background the suit land had led to the attachment of the said property
since it was inconceivable that all the requirements of legally transacting land could
be concluded in two minutes. [para. 31]
➢ The sale of the suit land to the 2nd appellant was null and void ab initio for contravening
the UBC Act. [para. 43]
Case 018
Lawrence Musebeni Baguma v Namugala David & Anor
Civil Appeal No. 40 & 41/2010
Court: In the High Court of Uganda at Kampala
Principle: [24] Doing a search – Other than a search at the land registry it is prudent for
intending purchaser/interested party to cause a physical inspection of the subject
land whose purpose is to ascertain;
1. Whether the land physically exists
2. Whether land is located in the area described in the title.
3. Who is in occupation/possession of the land.
4. What are the physical encumbrances on the land.
Brief facts:
The appellant purchased private mailo land from the from the 2nd respondent at shs. 8m and
executed part payment of the purchase price at shs.7.3m and the balance to be paid upon
receipt of certificate of title and signed transfer forms from the 2nd respondent. The 2nd
respondent reneged upon his obligations under the transaction and sold and transferred part
of the same piece of land to the first respondent under the belief that the 1st respondent was
a kibanja holder on the same piece of land and therefore entitled to the first right of purchase.
28 | P a g e
Held:
➢ The plaintiff having argued that prior to purchasing the disputed land the appellant
had inspected it and found it vacant and free from third party claims, and a search in
the land registry having revealed that its certificate of title was still in the names of its
original owner but with signed transfer forms in favour of the 2nd respondent (the
eventual vendor), the onus lay on the 1st respondent to prove his kibanja
interest/customary tenure in the suit premises and such evidence had been adduced.
Consequently, the 1st respondent did not prove his kibanja interest in the suit premises
and had no claim to the suit land.
Case 019
Amratlal Purshottam Bhimji & Anor v Gian Singh Bhambra
Civil Suit No. 239/2009 consolidated with Civil Suit No. 298/2010
Court: In the High Court of Uganda at Kampala
[91] The Law of Mortgages – Creation of a legal mortgage – It is prudent for the
mortgagee to cause a sufficient due diligence through a search at the land office
and a physical inspection of the property to ascertain whether there are many
incumbrances that would affect the legality of the mortgage.
Brief facts:
The 1st defendant advanced a loan to Sameer Bhimji who being the grandson of the 1st
plaintiff was acting in the best interests of the plaintiffs. The loan was to be paid back in 6
months and two properties were offered as security. The 1st defendant defaulted on the loan
and a repayment agreement was reached between the parties where a plot was to be sold by
the 1st plaintiff and another having a mortgage created thereon and the balance to be paid in
8 months. During negotiations the plaintiff realized that the 1st defendant had already
transferred one of the plots to himself instead without the plaintiff’s knowledge and had
29 | P a g e
lodged the 2nd certificate for transfer instead of registering a caveat thereon. The 1st plaintiff’s
lawyer managed to withdraw the initial certificate of title and the 1st plaintiff lodged a caveat
thereon. The CLR (4th defendant) demanded the return of the title, dismissed the caveat and
cancelled the said title and issued a special certificate of title in favour of the 1st defendant.
Held:
➢ To be a bona fide purchaser one must have done due diligence and exercised caution
before entering into a transaction of the nature that would ultimately be binding upon
him or her. The defendant had prior knowledge of all material facts surrounding plot
3 before he purchased it, but either deliberately avoided or conveniently overlooked
them.
[26] Doing a search – Where the land is a subject of any physical incumbrances which affect
the title of the vendor and such are ignored by the intending purchaser, that may constitute
evidence of constructive fraud.
Case 020
Teopista Mugenzi v Pascal Bryon Mugenzi & Anor
Civil Suit No. 166/1992
Principle: [27] Purchasing land subject to encumbrances – Any purchase/creation of an

interest in land which is a subject of a subsisting encumbrance may be impeached
on account of fraud.
The intending purchaser or interested party must provide for settlement of the
claims of any person claiming interest in respect of the encumbrance.
Brief facts:
The plaintiff and the 1st defendant being married acquired land on which the matrimonial
property was situated. The plaintiff claimed to have contributed financially towards the
acquisition of the property and was entitled to joint ownership thereof. The defendant started
30 | P a g e
to sell all their property without accounting for the proceeds and without the consent of the
plaintiff and the children. In the course of such selling the plaintiff was dispossessed of her
home. The purchaser of the property on which the matrimonial home was situated was the
2nd defendant whose purchase of the land she tried to block by placing a caveat against the
transfer of her property with the Registrar of Titles. Notwithstanding her presence, on the
land where their home was the 2nd defendant proceeded to purchase the property and the 3rd
defendant transferred the property to the 2nd defendant despite a caveat lodged by the
plaintiff which had not been vacated.
Held:
➢ The plaintiff contributed a substantial amount of money towards the purchase of the
property which the 1st defendant assumed and registered as a sole proprietor without
regard to the equitable and beneficiary interest of his wife and children. The 1st
defendant could only sell with the consent of his wife and the wife and children not
only had a right to be consulted but also were entitled to proceeds from the sale of the
family property.
Case 021
Inid Tumwebaze v Mpeirwe Stephen & Anor
HCT-05-CV-CA-0039-2010
Court: High Court of Uganda at Mbarara
Principle: [28] Purchasing matrimonial/family property – Where matrimonial or family

property is registered in the names of one of the spouses, that property can be a
subject of a sale provided the consent of the unregistered spouse is obtained. See;
s. 38A and s. 39 of the Land Act.
{Consequences of not obtaining spousal consent}
Held:
31 | P a g e
➢ The land where the 1st respondent’s family ordinarily resided with his spouse and from
which they derived sustenance and transacting on such family land would require
spousal consent and provisions of the law being mandatory and can’t be circumvented
the whole dealing/transaction in the land was void ab initio for want of spousal
consent.
Case 022
Lamulati Ssanyu Nakanwagi v Hajji Asumani Jjumba & 2 Ors
Court: High Court of Uganda at Masaka
Principle: [29] para. 28 (supra)
Brief facts:
The plaintiff, a wife to the 1st defendant married under Islamic law moved with him from the
principal home in Masaka to stay with upon the suit land. The first defendant borrowed some
money from the 2nd defendant and pledged his house in the leasehold. Upon failure to clear
his debt, the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant entered into another agreement with the 2nd
defendant to sell his share in the in the leasehold at the cost of the debt and transferred the
certificate of title to the 2nd defendant who also agreed to sell to the 3rd defendant.
Held:
➢ S. 39 of the Land Act prohibited to sell, exchange, transfer, pledge, mortgage or lease
any land inter alia land on which the person ordinarily resides with his or her spouse
and from which they derive sustenance.
➢ Court finds that on a balance of probabilities, that although and the 1st defendant were
spouses, they did not ordinarily reside and derive their sustenance from the suit land.
[30] Land subject to a mortgage – A mortgage whether legal or equitable is normally registered
as an encumbrance and sometimes on the duplicate certificate of title. It follows that land or
32 | P a g e
property subject to mortgage cannot be dealt in without settling the claims under a mortgage.
There are three ways in which the land subject of a mortgage may be purchased;
1.0. The mortgagor/registered proprietor may sell and transfer the land with the consent of the
mortgagee/lender.
1.1. The mortgagor/borrower must notify the bank/lender of the desire to sell the
mortgaged property subject to payment of mortgage dues.
1.2. The intending purchaser should formally request for a confirmation of a no objection
to the transaction from the bank.
1.3. An agreement of sale is executed between the vendor, mortgagee and the purchaser
for the settlement of the mortgage dues.
2.0. Where the mortgagor/registered proprietor has defaulted on the mortgage obligations, the
mortgage deed and the Mortgage Act permit the mortgagee/lender to sell the mortgaged
property either by public auction or by private treaty.
2.1. For the bank to lawfully sell the mortgaged property whether by public auction or
private treaty, the bank/lender/mortgagee must have complied with the statutory
requirements under the Mortgage Act pertaining to the sale of the mortgaged property.
3.0. The mortgagee/lender may foreclose by action in court that allows the lender to sale the
property in order to recover the outstanding mortgage sum.
4.0 Land/property may be lawfully purchased under a sale by court in execution od a decree.
The purchaser must cause a due diligence to confirm that the legal procedures applicable to a
sale by court action have been compiled with.
Case 023
Letshego Uganda Limited v Felix Kulayigye
Oringinating Summons No. 05/2020
33 | P a g e
Principle: [30] (supra) Land subject to a mortgage – 2.1. (supra) For the bank to lawfully sell
the mortgaged property whether by public auction or private treaty, the
bank/lender/mortgagee must have complied with the statutory requirements
under the Mortgage Act pertaining to the sale of the mortgaged property.
Brief facts:
The defendant obtained two loan facilities from the plaintiff company both payable in three
months and secured by a legal mortgage on land. The defendant on default was issued with
notices of default by the plaintiff which were ignored. Upon expiry of the required statutory
period without the defendant remedying the default, the plaintiff issued the defendant with
notices of sale of the mortgaged property. Upon the notices being ignored, the plaintiff
advertised the property but was denied by the defendant from taking possession and being
issued with a notice of intention to enter into possession. The defendant requested for more
time which he was accorded but failed to repay the loan.
Held:
➢ The defendant having failed to pay back the money as agreed the plaintiff took all the
necessary steps to achieve recovery but to no avail. The defendant was accordingly
served with a notice of default in accordance with s.19 of the Mortgage Act, 2009 which
the defendant ignored.
➢ The plaintiff was entitled under s.20(e) of the Act upon default an order of sale of the
mortgaged property in order to recover the outstanding sum. The plaintiff is entitled to
an order of vacant possession in order to enable them execute the sale in accordance
with the law as well as interest from the date of default.
➢ The plaintiff could not sell the property by private treaty because the provisions under
the Regulation 10 of the Mortgage Regulations as laid out above, the consent has to be
given specifically by notice issued by the mortgagor and the same must not be
retrospective. This means that the consent shall not have been made/given prior to the
time of sale, and consent expressed by the mortgagor at the time of the executing the
mortgage agreement is definitely retrospective and outlawed.
➢ The sale can only be conducted by public auction in accordance with s.27 and s. 28 of
the Mortgage Act and Regulations 8 and 9 of the Mortgage Regulations.
34 | P a g e
Case 024
Tororo Steel Works v Betty Akikoth
HCT-00-CV-CS-0001-2008
Sourced by: < https://old.ulii.org/ug/judgment/commercial-court/2008/7 >
Principle: [30] (Supra) Land subject to a mortgage – 3.0. (supra) The mortgagee/lender may
foreclose by action in court that allows the lender to sale the property in order to
recover the outstanding mortgage sum.
Brief facts:
The defendant approached the plaintiff for the provision of building materials on credit terms
and the plaintiff did supply the said goods. As security for the credit arrangement, the
defendant deposited her certificate of title for the land and the plaintiff lodged a caveat on
the said land. The amount was never paid by cheque.
Held:
➢ The plaintiff is foreclosed of the right to redeem the mortgaged property.

➢ The plaintiff is entitled to sell the said land by private treaty or public auction to recover
the monies due and the costs and expenses thereto.
Case 025
Constance Butamanya v Rwamatsibuza & Ors
Civil suit No. 103/1992
Principle: [33] Confirmation of boundaries of the land – The other purpose of the boundary
opening exercise is to ascertain if there is no overlap of titles or encroachment.
Brief facts:
35 | P a g e
The plaintiffs and defendants are registered proprietors of neighbouring lands. The plaintiff
claims that when surveying their land, the defendants encroached upon his land and
subsequently caused the piece and encroached upon which measures approximately 30
hectares to be included in the defendant’s certificate of title.
Held:
➢ There exists an overlap between the certificate of title of the plaintiff and that of the
defendants. The overlap arose because the survey of the land of the defendants which
was carried out later than that of the land leased out to the plaintiffs included part of
the already surveyed for the plaintiff. The mistake was caused by the staff of the
surveyor because when he carried out the second survey, he did not have the
appropriate plans of the area, following the destruction caused by the liberation war.
It was accordingly the defendants’ title which overlapped that of the plaintiff.
Case 026
Meera Investments Ltd v Sadrdin Gulamhussein & Ors
Principle: [34] Confirmation of boundaries of the land – The prospective purchaser is expected
to acquire into and ascertain the root of the title from the vendor. There are two
possible titles that the vendor may have vide a duplicate certificate of title. A
duplicate certificate of title is issued to the owner/proprietor and its contents must
be in tandem with the particulars on the white page.
[97] The Law of Mortgages – Registration of a mortgage is concluded where entry

is made on the register of the white page and the owner’s copy of the title on the
incumbrance page indicating the instrument number, indicating the legal mortgage
as the incumbrance and the date of the mortgage.
Brief facts:
36 | P a g e
The plaintiff in July 2007 purchased the suit property from the 2nd defendant who had too
in June 2007 purchased it from the 3rd defendant. The plaintiff caused a search in the land
registry and a sale agreement and transfer deed were executed with the 2nd defendant where
the plaintiff got registered on the title and too possession. The plaintiff got a notice from the
CLR claiming forgery of the said title but it was agreed that an allegation of fraud was outside
the scope of the CLR and the matter should go to court. The CLR later proceeded to cancel
the title of the plaintiff on which the plaintiff sued.
Held:
➢ What is expected of any party doing a search on registered land is not a forensic audit
of the Register. A party only has to satisfy himself or herself that the person from whom
he or she is purchasing the land has apparent title. The plaintiff only had the duty to
search the Register and confirm that the potential vendor was actually the registered
owner. As a potential buyer, the plaintiff was not expected to go to behind the Register.
Confirmation by the Land Registry of the registration status of the vendor was
invariably sufficient.
➢ Section 48 of the RTA is to the effect that upon registration of an instrument in
duplicate, the Registrar shall keep the original and deliver the duplicate to the person
entitled. The provision is important in respect of the issue that a person entitled only
holds a duplicate of the original, otherwise known as the ‘owner copy’. The particulars
on it must correspond with those on the original also known as the ‘white page’. The
original is what is kept by the CLR as the Registry copy.
Case 027
C. R Patel v Commissioner Land Registration & 2 Ors
HCCS No. 87/2009
Principle: [35] Confirmation of boundaries of the land – Where the duplicate certificate of title
is misplaced, lost or obliterated, the CLR may create a special certificate of title.
37 | P a g e
The creation renders the duplicate certificate of title replaced and of no legal
consequence.
Brief facts:
The plaintiff brought property (the pieces of land) from the vendors and was duly registered
on the certificates of title. Later officers from the CID interrogated the plaintiff in respect of
how he purchased the land under the pretext that the vendor had obtained by fraud and was
being investigated. The plaintiff was led to the CLR and required that his special certificate
of title be confiscated and cancelled.
Held:
➢ A special certificate of title once issued under s.70 of the RTA simply replaces the
duplicate certificate of title which is lost or presumed to be lost. It is the same case
with a substitute certificate of title under s.71 of the RTA. The replacement is not a
new or separate certificate of title in terms of s.64 of the RTA since it is not a separate
part of the Register (Folio). The special and duplicate certificates of title are all based
on one folio of the register. (White page)
Case 028
Silver Byaruhanga v Fr. Emmanuel Ruvugwaho & Anor
Principle: [39] Confirmation of boundaries of the land – Where the title is in the names of
administrators of an estate, it is pertinent for an intending purchaser to ascertain
and confirm whether the land is in possession of beneficiaries/whether the
administrators selling are mandated with such capacity.
[41] Capacity to sell and transfer a registrable interest in land – Where the land is
registered in the names of administrators, the administrators have capacity to sell
and effect transfer in their capacity as such.
38 | P a g e
Brief facts:
The appellant filed the suit claiming ownership of the suit land which belonged originally to
the late Edward Wilson Mukasa Kakooza who died testate having appointed 4 executors.
Edward Kaluzi, one of the executors got himself registered on the certificate of title of the suit
land as the proprietor in the suit land as the proprietor in his personal capacity & then sold
the land to the 1st respondent who thereafter sold it to the 2nd respondent. Later, 4 of the
children of the deceased instituted a suit against the executors alleging mismanagement of
the father’s estate and consent was reached where they were granted letters of administration
and any property belonging to the deceased’s estate which had not yet been disposed of
should revert to the children. They sold the suit land to the appellant in 2003 but the High
Court did not issue them with letters of administration until 2004 and were subsequently
registered on the special certificate of title. They immediately sold the land to the appellant
and got his name registered on the special certificate of title on the same day. When the
appellant attempted to access the land, the 1st respondent resisted claiming he was the lawful
owner and had purchased the land from Edward Kalunzi.
Held:
➢ Edward Kalunzi was bound to comply with sections 272 of the Succession Act and s.
1345(1) and (3) of the RTA.
➢ He was therefore required under s.134(1) of the RTA to apply together with the co-
executors to the office of the registrar of titles for registration as proprietors of the suit
land and they had to attach a letter of probate indicating that they had all been
appointed executors of the estate of the deceased.
The Registrar of titles was required upon receipt of their application to enter in the
register book a memorandum notifying their appointment as executors and the date of
the death of the deceased, the proprietor thereof.
The fact Edward Kalunzi not only applied alone to be registered as proprietor of the
suit land but was actually singularly registered without indicating his capacity and the
name and date of the deceased contravened s.134(1) of the RTA as was the purported
agreement of sale that was executed in that capacity with the 1st respondent.
39 | P a g e
➢ Secondly, Edward Kalunzi was required under s.134(3) of the RTA to involve all the
other named executors who had proved the will together with him and had been
granted probate, in all the transactions involving the suit land. The fact that he
proceeded to singly execute the sale agreement with the 1st respondent for the sale of
the suit land and to sign the documents of transfer without involving the co-executors
contravened s.134(3) of the RTA.
➢ The Court of Appeal erred when it held that Edward Kalunzi had the authority to
dispose of the suit land without the involving the co-executors. Therefore, the
registration of Kalunzi on the title was illegal and the transfer and sale of the suit land
to the 1st respondent was invalid and the same applies to the sale of the suit land to
the 2nd respondent.
➢ The new administrators (the children of the deceased) also did not have powers to
transfer the land to the appellant because the transfer was done before the High Court
granted them letters of administration.
Case 029
Nuwe Amanya Mushega v Charles Odere
Principle: [40] Capacity to sell and transfer a registrable interest in land – In light of the
provisions of s.59 of the RTA, a sale and transfer of land registered under the RTA
can only be lawfully concluded by the person registered on the title as proprietor
subject to any other legal requirements pertaining to the specific transaction.
Where the land is registered in the names of an individual, the sale and transfer
may be concluded by the person registered on the title if such a person is an adult
of sound mind.
40 | P a g e
However, the registered proprietor may conclude a sale and transfer of registered
land through an attorney deriving capacity from a duly executed registered power
of attorney. See: s. 146, 147 & 148 of the RTA.
Brief facts:
The plaintiff brought the suit to recover money from the defendant, damages and costs of the
suit. The claim arises out of a contract of sale of properties where the plaintiff claims the
defendant held out as the agent/attorney of the vendors with powers to sell the properties.
The defendant retained the money paid to him as part payment and did not pass the cheque
to DFCU Bank. Subsequently, the plaintiff refused to pay the balance and terminated the
contract on grounds that the money paid to the defendant was misapplied by the defendant.
Further that the defendant lacked the requisite authority to enter into the transaction on
behalf of the registered proprietors and demanded a refund of the money paid.
Held:
➢ S.146(1) and (2) of the RTA empowers a proprietor of any land to under the operation
of the Act or any lease or mortgage to grant a power of attorney to any person to act
for him or her in dealing with the land. The power of attorney has to be registered.
➢ The evidence before court suggests that the power of attorney was duly registered.
➢ However, decided cases have established that the power of attorney should be
construed strictly and the instrument will not bind the parties unless it complies with
s.146 and 148 of the RTA.
➢ The agreement for sale executed by the parties in this case and the power of attorney
show that the registered proprietor of the properties the plaintiff was to buy are Mowm
Construction Ltd and Owalla Home Investments Trust (EA) Ltd and not Mudebo James,
the donor of the power of attorney. Mudebo executed the power of attorney in respect
of the suit property as Managing Director of Mowm Construction Ltd and not for or on
behalf of the said company.
➢ The power of attorney did not comply with the provisions of s.146(1) of the RTA and
therefore was not validly executed. It did therefore not give the defendant lawful
authority to deal with the land.
41 | P a g e
Case 030
Nsimbe Holdings Ltd v Attorney General & Anor
Constitutional Petition No. 2/2006
Court: Constitutional Court of Uganda
Sourced by: < https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/constitutional-court-uganda/2007/7 >
Principle: [42] Capacity to sell and transfer a registrable interest in land – Where the land
sought to be sold and transferred is one in which government has an interest in, the sale and
transfer may require the approval of the Attorney General. (Land under ULC)
Brief facts:
The petitioner is joint venture company established with the major objective of developing
the Nsimbe Estate Housing Project as a model project of planned Housing scheme in Uganda
was aggrieved by some of the findings of the report by the IGG which conducted an
investigation into allegations of corruption and mismanagement on the part of some NSSF
officials of the fund and other individuals in implementing the joint venture.
Held:
➢ It was unconstitutional for the NSSF to enter into a merger agreement with Mugoya
Estates Ltd without submitting such agreement to the Attorney General.
➢ The agreements leafing to the formation of Nsimbe Holdings Ltd were unconstitutional
and therefore the company cannot exist in law.
Case 031
John Byekwaso & Anor v Yudaya Ndagire
Court: High Court of Uganda at Kampala.
42 | P a g e
Principle: [44] Capacity to sell and transfer a registrable interest in land – A beneficiary of
an estate/customary heir has no capacity to sell/transfer registered land. The
capacity is vested in the administrators.
Brief facts:
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants entered onto the land without their permission and
started carrying on illegal activities. The defendant/respondent on the other hand pleaded
that she is a lawful occupant on the land for value on the kibanja with an old semi-permanent
structure or building, having bought the same from a one Nababi Damalie.
Held:
➢ In John Buteraba v Edirisa Sserwanga & 3 Ors HCCS No. 222/2008, it was held that
without letters of administration, thedefendant had no authority to sell and could not
enter into a legal contract with the plaintiff.
➢ There was no evidence on record that DW5 (vendor) Damalie Nababi had letters of
administration to the estate of her son the late Nkeera as to have the authority to sell
his kibanja.
➢ The people who executed the sale agreement between Damalie Nababi and the
defendant were minors. This rendered the sale agreement null and void.
Case 032
Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust v General Parts (U) Ltd
Misc. Application No. 8/2000 (Arising from Civil Appeal No. 5/1999)
Court: Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala
Principle: [45] Capacity to sell and transfer a registrable interest in land – Where the land is
registered in the names of the company, there may be need for a resolution and a
power of attorney authorizing the sale and transfer and appointing the authorized
persons to affect the transfer.
43 | P a g e
[90] The Law of Mortgages – Creation of a legal mortgage – The registered

proprietor may conclude the mortgage through a legally appointed attorney under
a duly registered power of attorney. See: s. 146, 147 and 148 of the RTA.
Held:
➢ The mortgage instrument was not validly executed because of the absence of General
Parts common seal, there was failure to produce in evidence the power of attorney by
virtue of which General Parts was supposed to execute the mortgage and furthermore,
there was failure to show that there was compliance with the statutory provisions
relating to the signing and registration of that power of attorney as well as the apparent
non-compliance with statutory provisions regarding the signing of the mortgage as an
instrument.
Case 033
Mukiibi Joseph v Elitek Technologies International Ltd & Ors
Principle: [46] Execution of agreement of sale – The agreement of sale should be executed by
the authorized persons save that where the signatories are illiterates, certificate
should be included.
Held:
➢ If it were granted that the plaintiff does not understand English, he would be
categorized as an illiterate under the Protection of Illiterates Act (Cap. 18).
S.2(b) thereof provides for verification of signatures of illiterates and s.3 thereof
provides for certification by the person instructed so to write by the illiterate and that
prior to the illiterate appending his or her mark, the document was read over and
explained to the illiterate.
Failure to comply with these requirements would render proceedings incompetent.
44 | P a g e
➢ The signature of the plaintiff was not verified and there was no certification of the same
in the earlier court proceedings to show that he did not understand the language in
which the documents were written or printed.
Case 034
Wakanyira George David v Ben Kavuya & Ors
HCT - 00 - CC - CS - 560 - 2006
Principle: [47] Execution of agreement of sale – The agreement of sale speaks for itself and
the terms thereof cannot be varied by an oral testimony under s. 92 of the Evidence
Act.
[55] b) Under declaration of price amounts to fraud. (Kyazze doesn’t agree with
this position)
Held:
➢ In the absence of evidence that the parties intended to be bound contractually to the
sale and transfer, court should be reluctant in deciding that the executed documents
formed the basis of a legal contractual relationship.
➢ The transaction between the appellant and the 1st and 2nd respondent was a loan
transaction the subsequent conduct of the respondents thereafter was illegal and
fraudulent.
➢ The act of declaring the suit properties as empty plots for valuation purposes by the
Chief Government Valuer and declaring the value of the suit properties lower than their
actual estimated market value at the time when the respondents had allegedly bought
them imputes no other conduct other than fraud on the part of respondents. (N.B. This
included acts such as; transferring the suit properties well knowing that the same were
intended to be securities for the loan advanced, of dealing with the securities as though
they belonged to the 1st and 2nd respondents when they were merely to hold them as
45 | P a g e
interest in equitable mortgages, of realizing the securities before the agreed date of
repayment of the loan.) [para. 55 (b)]
Case 035
Lamusa Magidu v Alamanzani Nsadhu & Anor
Court: High Court of Uganda at Jinja
Principle: [48] Execution of agreement of sale – The agreement of sale of registered land
attracts stamp duty and may not be admissible in evidence unless duly registered.
Non-registration does not invalidate the agreement as such agreement is not an
instrument of transfer within the context of s.54 of the RTA.
Held:
➢ The court can make an order for payment of the stamp duty and penalty required. The
appeal was allowed and the party was ordered to pay stamp duty.
➢ The court could dispose of the appeal without considering the document for which
stamp duty was not paid.
Case 036
Belex Tours and Travel Ltd v Crane Bank Ltd & Anor
Court: Court of Appeal of Uganda
[50] Execution of Transfer form & Attestation – The transfer instrument must be
properly executed and attested to by competent persons. The signatures on the
transfer instrument must be in Latin character or with a transliteration.
46 | P a g e
[92] The Law of Mortgages – s. 3(1) requires a mortgage to be concluded through

execution of an instrument in the prescribed form.
s. 54 of the RTA provides that no interest shall pass in registered land except upon
execution and registration of a proper instrument. It follows therefore that
conclusion of a legal mortgage requires execution of a mortgage deed/instrument
(deed becomes an instrument upon registration). The mortgage deed must be
properly executed pursuant to s. 147 and 148 of the RTA (properly attested).
Held:
➢ The learned Judge relied on an agreement which was inadmissible in evidence as no

stamp duty had been paid on it yet the transfer deed that was in respect of the same
subject matter and upon which stamp duty had been paid was not relied upon. The
trial judge should have relied on the transfer deed upon which stamp duty had been
paid.
➢ When the signatures to a mortgage are not in Latin character the mortgage is not valid
and that s. 147 and 148 are mandatory legal requirements.
➢ The execution of the mortgage by the 1st and 2nd respondents did not comply with
provisions of s. 147 and 148 of the RTA.
Case 037
John Ssemakula v Pope John Paul VI Social Club Ltd
Principle: [51] Execution of Transfer form & Attestation – The transfer instrument must be
signed by the proprietor who is alive at the time of signing.
Held:
➢ The death certificate and copy of the will clearly established that Erisa Ssemakula
Makona died 1st January, 1979. Therefore, the Erisa who signed the 1983 transfer
47 | P a g e
forms could not have been the Erisa who was the plaintiff’s grandfather who died in
1979.
Case 038
Hajji Sulaiman Lule v Zamu Nalumansi Nalongo Ernest & Anor
[1990] KALR 49
Principle: [52] Execution of Transfer form & Attestation – The transfer instrument must be in
the prescribed statutory form.
Held:
➢ The word ‘Transfer’ is a wide term and there is no technical meaning to it. But in simple
terms it means the vesting of property from one individual to another. S.90(1) of the
RTA Cap. 205 gives powers to a proprietor of a lease or mortgage or of any estate right
or interest to transfer such interest using the forms in the 7th schedule of the Act. The
law requires that consideration for such transfer to be stated concisely.
Case 039
Nile Bank Ltd v Richard Desmond Kaggwa
Principle: [53] Execution of Transfer form & Attestation – The transfer instrument must be
properly attested to by attesting witnesses who must be one of the prescribed
persons under s. 147 & 148 of the RTA.
[92] The Law of Mortgages – s. 3(1) requires a mortgage to be concluded through

execution of an instrument in the prescribed form.
s. 54 of the RTA provides that no interest shall pass in registered land except upon
execution and registration of a proper instrument. It follows therefore that
conclusion of a legal mortgage requires execution of a mortgage deed/instrument
48 | P a g e
(deed becomes an instrument upon registration). The mortgage deed must be

properly executed pursuant to s. 147 and 148 of the RTA (properly attested).
[103] The Law of Mortgages – Equitable Mortgage – The deposit of any of the
aforementioned documents must be with an intention to create an equitable
mortgage (not for purposes of safe custody)
[104] The Law of Mortgages – Equitable Mortgage – It is not a mandatory

requirement to register the equitable mortgage as that is not one of the prescribed
conditions under s.3(8) of the Mortgage Act. However, it is prudent practice that
the equitable mortgagee registers a caveat on the mortgaged property to serve as
notice to the world of existing equitable mortgage.
Held:
➢ The execution of the mortgage was invalid. A mortgage deed, just like a power of
attorney is governed by s. 55 of the RTA. It also requires attestation at the time of its
execution.
In the instant case, the space provided on the mortgage deed where the witness to the
signature of the mortgagor is supposed to sign is blank. This means that nobody
witnessed the signature of the mortgagor.
[55] Execution of Transfer form & Attestation – The transfer form is normally accompanied by
consent to the transfer form in which the consideration/purchase price is normally indicated
as well as the particulars of land together with the particulars of the transfer & transferee.
That is the form which is submitted to the office of the chief government valuer for ascertainment
of value of property in order to ascertain stamp duty payable.
Both the transfer form and consent to the transfer form contain a provision for the purchase
price and which the consideration isn’t money that must be equally payable gift you put it.
Question that arises is whether under the declaration of purchase price constitutes fraud which
can impeach the title of the transferee. There are two conflicting positions;
a) Under declaration of price doesn’t amount to fraud.

Betty Kizito v David Kizito Kanonya & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 8/2018)
49 | P a g e
b) Under declaration of price amounts to fraud. (Kyazze doesn’t agree with this position)
Wakanyira George David v Ben Kavuya & Ors (HCT - 00 - CC - CS - 560 – 2006)
Case 040
Betty Kizito v David Kizito Kanonya & Ors
Principle: [55] a) Under declaration of price doesn’t amount to fraud.
Held:
➢ The first respondent’s actions of concealing the true consideration in the transfer form
did not amount to fraud but was a breach of agreement. If the accused forms the intent
not to perform his or her side of the bargain after he or she has received the goods and
the title has passed, it is a mere intended breach of contract and not a such a fraud as
to give rise to false pretense.
Case 041
Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Anor v Edward Musisi
Principle: [56] Valuation and Payment of Stamp Duty & Registration Fees – Stamp duty and
registration fees must be paid on the transfer except where there is a waiver/tax
exemption. Tax exception is obtained from the minister of finance. The registration
fee is paid to the district local government.
[96] The Law of Mortgages – The mortgage instrument attracts stamp duty and
registration fees before it is registered.
50 | P a g e
s. 3(4) is to the effect that the mortgage shall take effect upon being registered.
Held:
➢ [CoA] In their judgement, the justices of the Court of Appeal found that the
irregularities in the sale were fundamental. In their view, these problems invalidate the
sale. The sale agreement did not bear endorsement that stamp duty had been paid at
the time of the transfer was, in their view speculative. The certificate of title was not
tendered in evidence which would have been conclusive evidence that the property was
bought and transferred in the names of the third party.
➢ [SC] The stamp duty for the agreement of sale had not been paid in accordance with
s.42 of the Stamps Act. That notwithstanding the land could not be transferred into
the names of the buyer without paying stamp duty and other taxes connected with the
land transfers. I do not agree therefore that with the holding of the learned judges of
the Court of Appeal that the trial judge’s holding that stamp duty would have been
paid at time of the transfer of the land was speculative.
[58] Valuation and Payment of Stamp Duty & Registration Fees – N.B: The stamp duty is paid
in the bank on the A/C of URA Registration fees paid to the local government.
[59] Registration
Upon payment of stamp duty and registration fees, the intending transferee should then
submit;
1. The duplicate certificate of title/special certificate of title.

2. The transfer form and consent to transfer form.
3. Proof of payment of stamp duty and registration fees.
4. Copies of the national ID of vendor and transferee.
5. Passport photos of both vendor and transferee.
6. Any resolution if required.
These are to be submitted to the relevant registry for processing the transfer.
Case 042
51 | P a g e
Haks Express Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA)
Miscellaneous Cause No. 168/2019
Principle: [60] Valuation and Payment of Stamp Duty & Registration Fees – Challenging the
valuation by the Chief Government Valuer.
Brief facts:
The suit land was compulsorily acquired by the respondent as being affected by the
construction of the Kampala Flyover and road upgrading project. The plaintiff challenged the
valuation report commissioned by the respondent’s consultants and chief government valuer
as being neither fair nor adequate, that it should be based on a more updated valuation
report commissioned by a neutral and competent valuer and/or auditor appointed by the
court and the court makes a determination of the amount of compensation ought to have
been paid.
Held:
➢ A party aggrieved by the quantum of compensation unilaterally arrived at as

compensation of its land is entitled to challenge the same before a court of competent
jurisdiction as clearly provided under Article 26(1).
➢ The applicant is not legally bound by the compensation sum returned by the
unilaterally appointed agents/consultants of the respondent.
➢ The fact that the compensation is approved by the Chief Government Valuer does not
bind the applicant especially where the applicant demonstrates through evidence that
the sum does not depict the value of the land.
➢ It is therefore ideal that there is an independent valuation of the market rate of the
land where there is contest between the two parties because an independent valuer
would not be biased by the parties involved and it is assumed that the value returned
would be objective.
➢ The market value is the estimated value of the property on the date of the valuation
between a willing buyer and a willing seller.
52 | P a g e
Case 043
Themi Nakibuuka Sebalu v Peter Sematimba & Ors
Civil Application No. 14/2014
Sourced by: < https://old.ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court/2014/17 >
Principle: [61] Registration on the certificate of title – Once a transfer has been registered
under s. 92(2) of the RTA, the interest/estate in the land is vested in the transferee.
[66] Effect of Registration on Certificate of Title – Registration has no time limit.
Held:
➢ Court: While we have sympathy for the applicant, if it is true that the said properties
to which she would be the sole beneficiary was fraudulently transferred in the names
of the first respondent, the legal reality now is that until the High Court decides in the
above suit, the property belongs to the first respondent.
Case 044
Andrew Babigumira v John Magezi
Sourced by: < https://old.ulii.org/ug/judgment/commercial-court/2014/4 >
Principle: [62] Registration on the certificate of title – The transfer is complete when the
names of the transferee are registered on the white page & owner’(s)’ copy. Under
s.59 of the RTA, a person registered thereof is deemed to be the absolute owner
thereof.
[63] In effect upon being registered as proprietor of the land the registered
proprietor becomes the legal owner of the land.
53 | P a g e
[64] Upon being registered as proprietor, he acquires legal possession & if the land
isn’t in possession of any other person the owner acquires constructive possession
even if they aren’t in actual possession.
[69] Impeachment of Certificate of title & Grounds – S.76 of RTA provides grounds
upon which a certificate of title may be impeached. One of the major grounds of
impeachment is fraud.
Held:
➢ Registered proprietorship under the RTA does not merely confer the right of possession
but the right to the estate subject to exceptions such as tenancies, licenses, bona fide
or lawful occupations excepted under the Land Act, Cap. 227.
➢ S.59 has to be read together with s. 176 of the RTA whose headnote provides that the
registered proprietor is protected against ejectment except in certain cases.
Case 045
Justin E.M.N. Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Co. Ltd
Principle: [65] Effect of Registration on Certificate of Title – The registered proprietor also
acquires the right to sue in trespass.
Held:
➢ There was trespass and exploitation of the suit land by the respondent while the
appellant was the registered mailo owner.
➢ When one acquires a certificate of title, they acquire constructive possession of the
land therein.
Case 046
Yakobo M.N. Senkungu & Ors v Cresencio Mukasa
54 | P a g e
Principle: [70] Impeachment of Certificate of title & Grounds – The following principles apply;
1. The burden lies on a person seeking to impeach a title on account of fraud.

Whether D acquired the title through fraud not whether D is a bona fide purchaser
for value without notice.
Held:
➢ The effect of a certificate of tile obtained by fraud according to s. 77 of the RTA is that
a certificate is considered void against all parties to the fraud.
➢ The making of multiple transfers on the land when they were on notice that the land
was subject to a court process was to disguise fraud as bona fide.
➢ In matters of fraud, the burden lies first on the claimant or party who asserts that the
transaction was tainted with fraud to adduce evidence to that effect. In the present
case, the respondent did state on a preponderance of probabilities that the transfer
was made to the appellants was fraudulent.
Case 047
Grace Karuhanga Butare v Ssanyu Mukasa Kyazike
Civil Application No. 652/2007
Court: High Court of Uganda
2. Fraud must be strictly pleaded and proved & the particulars must be set out in
the pleadings.
Held:
55 | P a g e
➢ It was important for the respondent to prove fraud against the appellant. The
respondent pleaded particulars of fraud against one Njuki. In her evidence she stated
that Njuki transferred the land in his names. However, should she did not point out
how and when the appellant contributed to the alleged fraud. Fraud must be pleaded
and strictly proved. [TO BE CONTINUED]
Case 048
Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd
3. The fraud must be attributed to the transferee i.e.; current registered proprietor
must be privy to the fraud.
Held:
➢ There was fraud and it was committed by someone at the land office. Fraud must be
proved strictly, the burden being heavier than on a balance of probabilities generally
accepted in civil matters. Fraud was not proved against the appellant for that matter.
Case 049
Friedrick JK Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd & 5 Ors
Principle: [73] Impeachment of Certificate of title & Grounds – Meaning of fraud.
56 | P a g e
[90] The Law of Mortgages – Creation of a legal mortgage – The registered

proprietor may conclude the mortgage through a legally appointed attorney under
a duly registered power of attorney. See: s. 146, 147 and 148 of the RTA.
Held:
➢ In terms of the Blacks Law Dictionary: To act with intent to defraud means to act
willfully, and with specific intent to deceive or cheat; ordinarily for the purpose of either
causing some financial loss to another or bringing about some financial gain to oneself.
➢ The appellant executed a power of attorney in favour of the second respondent with
one of the acts authorized by the power of attorney being to mortgage the appellant’s
land.
➢ The execution of a mortgage by the 1st and second respondents to secure the borrowing
by the 2nd respondent and not on behalf of the appellant far exceeded the authority
given by the power of attorney.
[75] Impeachment of Certificate of title & Grounds – Where fraud is pleaded and proved to the
required standard as against the current registered proprietor, the court may order for
cancellation of the title and entries on the register. The standard of proof is above the balance
of probabilities but not beyond reasonable doubt.
See: Hajji Numan Mubi Akulamusa versus Friendship Estates Limited CACA No. 104/2018
Case 050
Henely Property Developers Ltd v Attorney General
Sourced by: Note: The High Court ruling is only accessible in pdf. However there is the latest
ruling from the Court of Appeal against the AG of an appeal from the decision of this High
Court accessible at: < https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/court-appeal-uganda/2023/1 >
Principle: [76] Impeachment of Certificate of title & Grounds – The alternative remedy
available to a party who has lost an interest in land on account of any fraud within
57 | P a g e
the land office is an action for compensation. Action is maintained against the
Attorney General (AG) and the Commissioner Land Registration (CLR). See: s. 178
of the RTA.
Held:
➢ The creation, maintenance and issuance of the COT to the suit land was done in error
by the CLR and/or Registrar of titles and the defendant is in vicariously liable for the
error.
➢ The plaintiff has suffered a commercial loss and are therefore entitled to interest at a
commercial rate.
Case 051
Aketa Farmers and Millers and Anor v Turyamureeba Milton and Anor
Principle: [78] Impeachment of Certificate of title & Grounds – Defence of Bona fide Purchaser
for Value under the RTA – The burden lies on the defendant pleading bona fide for
value without notice to prove that they satisfy the threshold for protection as such.
S. 181 of the RTA.
Held:
➢ Once the defence of bona fide purchaser for value without notice of fraud is made the
burden of proof shifts to the defendant. In David Sajjaka Nalima vs. Rebecca Musoke
(Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1985 (CA)) it was held that while the burden of proving the
case lay with the plaintiff, the onus of establishing the plea of a bona fide purchaser
lay with the person that sets up such plea.
➢ In the present case the 1st defendant was under the mistaken notion that since the
burden of proof in the overall case lay with the plaintiffs, he bore no duty to establish
his defence that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of fraud. It is
58 | P a g e
my considered view that while the duty to prove the allegation of fraud lay with the
plaintiffs, the onus of proving the plea of bona fide purchase lay with the
1st defendant. No attempt was made to avail this court with proof of the purchase of
the suit land, the value or consideration of that purchase or indeed that the defendant
had no notice of fraud.
Case 052
John Katarikawe v William Katwiremu & Anor
[1977] HCB 187
Principle: [81] The position/legal status of a purchaser before transfer – The position of the
law is that the purchase does not confer/pass any legal interest in favour of the
purchaser except upon registration of a proper instrument under the RTA. (S.54 of
the RTA read together with s.59)
Brief facts:
The plaintiff entered into a sale agreement with the defendant whose agreement was to be
completed after the transfer. This was not done because he discovered that the title had been
transferred to the 2nd defendant who claimed to have an earlier oral contract of sale with the
1st defendant.
Held:
➢ The provisions of the RTA are clear that once a person is registered as a proprietor of
land, his title is indefeasible except for fraud.
1. Before transfer of land, a buyer under a contract acquires only an equitable interest.
On the land being transferred to him he acquires an indefeasible registered estate
unless the transfer was effected through fraud.
Case 053
Asiimwe Mary v Ssemwanga Godfrey

59 | P a g e
Principle: [82] The position/legal status of a purchaser before transfer – Where land is
purchased upon execution of an agreement of sale, and the purchaser takes
possession and also obtains the duplicate certificate of title, such a purchaser is
deemed to be the equitable owner entitled to a transfer of land into their names.
Where the vendor refuses to execute a transfer instrument, the purchaser can sue for specific
performance.
Held:
➢ Specific performance is an equitable remedy whose grant is within the discretion of

Court. Generally, it would not be granted in cases of where damages would provide an
adequate remedy.
➢ In Katarikawe v Katwiremu, it was held inter alia that for a party to be entitled to to
the equitable remedy of specific performance, there must be a specific act of part
performance.
➢ The plaintiff has paid part of the money and deposited the balance with the defendant’s
lawyer thus she had fulfilled the requirements for specific performance to be granted.
[83] The position/legal status of a purchaser before transfer – Where the purchaser pays part
of the consideration, takes possession of both the land and duplicate certificate of title; the
position of the law is that the purchaser is the equitable owner and the proprietor is the trustee
of the legal interest in the land. The remedy available to the proprietor is recovery of the
outstanding sum together with damages.
Where upon purchase of the land and completion of payment, the vendor disappears/cannot
be found and never executed a transfer instrument, the purchaser may apply to the CLR to vest
the land into his name (vesting order). S.167 of the RTA.
[84] The Law of Mortgages – The source of the law:
i) Article 26(1) of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda

ii) The Mortgage Act, 2009
iii) The RTA
60 | P a g e
iv) The Land Act

v) The Civil Procedure Act
vi) The Civil Procedure Rules
vii) Judicature Act
[87] The Law of Mortgages – Under the Act, provision is made for a second mortgage, a third
mortgage and a further mortgage in respect of the same land in respect of different mortgages.
The term mortgagor/mortgagee extends to successors in title provided there is a duly registered
deed of assignment of the rights under a mortgage.
See: s. 17 of the Act.
[88] The Law of Mortgages – Creation of a legal mortgage
See: s. 3 of the Act.
[89] The Law of Mortgages – Creation of a legal mortgage – It is only a person holding land
under a form of land tenure who may create a mortgage. The recognized land tenure systems
are mailo, freehold, leasehold and customary tenure. However, the law recognizes interests of
lawful or bona fide occupants under s. 29 of the Land Act.
In case of a legal mortgage on registered land, it is a requirement that the mortgagor must be
the registered proprietor (s. 59 of the RTA). S. 92(1) of the RTA: Only registered proprietor who
can lease, transfer or mortgage.
Case 054
East Africa Foam Limited v Attorney General & Ors
Civil Suits No. 292 and 67 of 2002
Principle: [93] The Law of Mortgages – In the event that the mortgagor is a company, the
mortgagor must present a duly executed and registered resolution authorizing the
company to borrow money and secure the borrowing with the company property.
61 | P a g e
Held:
➢ By a company resolution, the plaintiff company duly empowered PW1, its Managing
Director and Jehoosh Sendege to sign the security document and there was no need
for the common seal.
➢ The mortgage and debenture were valid and enforceable.
[94] The law of mortgages – Where the mortgagor/mortgagee is illiterate, a certificate of

attestation must be executed confirming that the contents were read and translated to the
parties before execution. (Where the person appends a thumbprint too requires a certificate of
attestation).
[98] Under s. 54 of the RTA, the interest of the mortgagee in the subject land is only recognized
on the basis of a duly registered mortgage instrument. The mortgagee must present the owner’s
copy of the title together with the mortgage instrument and proof of payment of the requisite
fees to the relevant registry for purposes of registration of the mortgage.
Case 055
Boney Mwebesa Katatumba and 3 Ors v Shumuk Springs Development Ltd and 3 Ors
Court: In the High of Uganda at Kampala
Principle: [99] The Law of Mortgages – Where the mortgaged property is matrimonial
property, it is a mandatory requirement to obtain the consent of the spouse of the
mortgagor living in that matrimonial home. The consent must be in writing. The
consent required must be informed and genuine consent subject to advice from an
independent person. See: s.5 & 5 of the Mortgage Act, 2009.
Brief facts:
The plaintiff entered into various sale agreements of his property with the defendants in order
to settle his debts. The defendants took possession of the property but are alleged to have
defaulted on the contractual and payment obligations to the plaintiff and his creditors.
Held:
62 | P a g e
➢ The plaintiff has lived on the said property since 1980 as their residence with the bigger
part of the property being their main source of livelihood.
➢ S.39 of the Land Act (as amended) requires that spousal consent be granted before
family property is sold.
➢ The defendants tried in vain to disconnect the family’s residential rights in the property
on the basis of the 4th plaintiff testimony that the family of the 1st plaintiff only resided
in the said property since once in a while they also would reside in such other places
like at their rural home in Mbarara and at some point, also reside at Black Lines House.
The intermittent short stays outside the residence cannot in themselves deny the fact
that this property was clearly testified to and proved to be the main residence of the 1st
plaintiff’s family so as not to make it any less of a matrimonial home or as the Land
Act could describe it family property because the fact on record remains that this was
the house in which the family ordinarily resided and from which it derived its livelihood.
➢ There was indeed in respect of this property no evidence of spousal consent with the
so-called spousal consent being properly rebutted as being that of the spouse who
ordinarily lived in the said property and in the absence of which the said contract
would collapse on its face since the 4th plaintiff who was the spouse never consent as
required and neither was it sought from her.
Case 056
Uganda Ecumenical Church Loan Fund Ltd v Nankabirwa Harriet
HCT-00-CC-CS-0307-2002
Principle: [101] The Law of Mortgages – Equitable Mortgage – An equitable mortgage is a

charge on the property but does not convey any legal interest/estate. It does not
pass any legal interest in favour of the mortgagee.
[104] The Law of Mortgages – Equitable Mortgage – It is not a mandatory

requirement to register the equitable mortgage as that is not one of the prescribed
conditions under s.3(8) of the Mortgage Act. However, it is prudent practice that
63 | P a g e
the equitable mortgagee registers a caveat on the mortgaged property to serve as

notice to the world of existing equitable mortgage.
Held:
➢ In Words and Phrases Legally Defined Vol. 3, an equitable mortgage is defined as a

charge which created a charge on the property but does not convey any legal interest
or estate.
➢ The Mortgage Act applies to registered and equitable mortgage created over land
registered under the RTA.
➢ The court found that the transaction was an equitable mortgage but it was not a
mortgage under the provisions of the Mortgage Act. [para. 103]
[102] The Law of Mortgages – Equitable Mortgage – An equitable mortgage is created pursuant
to s. 3(1) read together with s. (8) of the Mortgage Act. It arises where the mortgagor deposits
with the mortgagee a certificate of customary ownership, lease agreement or other document
evidencing ownership of an interest in land.
Case 057
GAPCO Uganda Ltd v Kaweesa Badru & Anor
Principle: [105] Leasehold – A lease connotes an agreement of land between the owner of
land (lessor) and any person interested in exclusive use of property for a certain
period.
Held:
➢ The applicant had occupied the suit land for 53 years as a sitting tenant and has over
36 years of a subsisting lease.
Case 058
64 | P a g e
Greenboat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala
HCT-00-CC-CS-0580-2003
Principle: [106] Leasehold – A lease constitutes an agreement on defined terms by parties

that must be of competent understanding and have mutually agreed to not only on
the use of the land but also consideration.
[119] Leasehold – Leases on privately owned land – These leases can only be
created by the persons registered as proprietors thereof. See: s. 92 of the Land Act.
These leases are contractual in nature meaning that the terms are mutually agreed
between the parties.
Held:
➢ For a contract to be valid and legally enforceable, there must be capacity to contract,
intention to contract, consensus ad idem, valuable consideration, legality of purpose
and sufficient entry certainty of terms.
Case 059
Musisi Gabriel v Edco Ltd & Anor
Brief facts:
The appellant’s father stayed on the suit land (mailo land) which belonged to the registered
proprietor Obed Kamulegeya. Obed had agreed to sell to the late but later changed his mind.
The late sued Obed unsuccessfully and on his death the appellant took over as a beneficiary.
The respondent company became the registered proprietor having bought land from abroad.
65 | P a g e
Principle: [107] Leasehold – Statutory Leases – These are a creature of a statute and they
are binding on the parties thereto without any need to of a contractual
arrangement. They arise by operation of the law. S.40(5) of the Land Act proves
that where non-citizens were holding land as a lease on conversion before the
1995 Constitution such persons are deemed by law to hold a lease for 99 years.
S.40(6) of the Land Act provides that a citizen of Uganda who at the time held a
mailo or freehold interest but denounces Ugandan citizenship is deemed to
continue holding a title as a lease for 99 years.
Held:
➢ In 1989 when the 1st respondent company purchased the suit land, it lawfully acquired
a lease on conversion within the meaning of the Land Reform Decree (LRD) 1975 even
though the C.O.T continued to reflect that it was mailo land.
➢ Having lawfully acquired a lease on conversion in 1989 under the LRD 1975, it would
follow that the 1st respondent continued to hold the lease with the coming into force of
the 1995 Constitution which restored mailo tenure system and principally restricted
acquisition of mailo tenure by non-citizens and the 1st respondent company being a
non-citizen could not hold a mailo title on conversion but was deemed to have
continued to hold a lease on the suit land.
[108] Leasehold – Leases on public land – The mandate to manage public is primarily vested
in the ULC whose powers include leasing out land to interested parties. See: 53(c) of the Land
Act.
Case 060
Nyumba Ya Chuma Ltd v Uganda Land Commission and Anor
Constitutional Petition No. 3 / 2010
Court: Constitutional Court of Uganda
66 | P a g e
Principle: [109] Leasehold – Leases on public land – The ULC mandate also extends to land
that is registered in its name or where it is the controlling authority.
[111] Leasehold – Leases on public land – A further mandate is vested in the

District Land Board (DLB) UNDER S.59(a) of the LAND Act to hold and allocated
land in a district which is not owned by any person or authority. The DLB cannot
grant leases/any freehold interest on land under the control of the ULC.
Held:
➢ The suit land from evidence is owned by the Government of Uganda and has never
been in wholly or in part owned by KDLB or any district body.
➢ There was no evidence to show that the then Kampala City Council, now KCCA has
ever had a statutory lease over the suit land from which it could have legally granted
a lease to the petitioner.
➢ The dealings of the ULC were therefore not in contravention of the said provisions of
the constitution and the extension of the lease by KDLB in favour of the petitioner was
invalid and without legal basis.
➢ The ULC acquired the suit land in compliance with the constitution and the functions
thereunder Article 239, s.49 and s. 53 of the Land Act (as amended) and performed
its functions under the law by registering the suit land into its names for and on behalf
of the Government under a freehold title.
➢ Whereas the mandate, functions and powers of the ULC are in respect of land owned
by the Government, those of the DLB are in respect of land within such board’s
territorial jurisdiction which is not owned by any person or authority.
Case 061
St. Benedict Buwama S.S Ltd v Mary Nayita Musoke
67 | P a g e
Principle: [110] Leasehold – Leases on public land – The ULC has no mandate to grant leases
on land owned privately.
[114] Leasehold – Leases on public land – For land to be leased by the

commission/DLB it must be available for leasing in the sense there is no pre-
existing lease subsisting at the time.
Brief facts:
The respondent brought an action against the appellant in then Mpigi District Land Tribunal
that she had acquired the suit land as a playground for her school (Uganda Martyrs Day and
Boarding Primary School). The appellant claimed to be in possession of a lease over the suit
land and sued for trespass.
Held:
➢ The suit land being a private mailo tenure is not a category of the land that ULC could
deal with as controlling authority.
➢ For the ULC to lease offer to be valid, the following circumstances must the fulfilled;
a) The land in question is public and managed under the Public Lands Act with ULC
as controlling authority.
b) The land must be available for leasing. There should be due process to rule out
other people’s claims of ownership or unregistered interests.
c) The land should not be already under the Registration of Titles Act (RTA).
[112] Leasehold – Leases on public land – In case of leases which were granted by the ULC on
land that has since been returned to the Buganda kingdom, the lessor is now the Kabaka of
Buganda represented by the Buganda Land Board (BLB).
DLBs are by virtue of s.59 of the Land Act declared to be successors in title to the former
controlling authorities.
[113] The law is silent on what considerations, principles and criteria should be adopted by the
ULC or the DLB to guide the decision to allocate/lease land to any person.
Where a lease is granted by the ULC/DLB for a specified period of time upon expiry of the lease
the land/property reverts to the commissioner or the Board.
68 | P a g e
Case 062
Andrew Kawuki v Jackson Semaganyi
Principle: [115] Leasehold – Leases on public land – There should not be any subsisting offer
made to another person/applicant in respect of the same land.
Held:
➢ The trial court rightly held that the lease offer to plot 5 which was given in favour of
the applicant was no longer in existence since plot 5 was no more and there was no
evidence to show that he had a fresh lease offer to plot 5A having established that plot
5B was granted to the church.
[116] Leasehold – Leases on public land – The land should be vacant or in occupation of the
applicant.
Case 063
Kampala District Land Board and Anor v National Housing and Construction
Corporation
Supreme Court Civil Appeal No.2/2004
Court: The Supreme Court of Uganda
Principle: [117] Leasehold – Leases on public land – There should not be conflicting or
adverse claimants in respect of the land.
Brief facts:
69 | P a g e
The respondent was granted a leasehold where he constructed blocks of flats on the land and
latrine and remained in possession. The respondent later learned that the land had been
offered to the second appellant by lease.
Held:
➢ The DLBs become successors in title to controlling or urban authorities in respect of

public land which had not been granted or alienated to any person or authority. They
become successors by operation of the law. The suit of land was vested in KDLB which
had jurisdiction to allocate it, if it was not owned by any person / authority.
Case 064
Alex Agandru v Etoma Francis
Court: High Court of Uganda at Arua
Principle: [118] Leasehold – Leases on public land – Where the applicant is not in occupation
but has a superior equitable claim to that of the occupant, the Board may consider
the applicant.
[120] Leasehold – Leases on privately owned land – The parties may agree to
exclude the terms implied under the RTA. In light of the requirement under s.54 of
the RTA, a lease is an instrument which can only pass a legal interest upon
registration. An unregistered lease is merely a contract inter parties which does
not bond third parties unless they are aware of it.
Held:
➢ Land is available for leasing by the DLB to an applicant when it is either

i) Vacant and there are no conflicting claims to it
ii) Or is occupied by the applicant and there are no adverse claims to that
occupation
70 | P a g e
iii) Or where the applicant is no longer in occupation but has a superior equitable
claim to that of the occupant,
iv) Or where the applicant is not in occupation but has no objection to the
application.
Case 065
Evergreen Fields Uganda Ltd v Bernard Tungwako & Anor
Sourced by: < https://old.ulii.org/ug/judgment/hc-land-division-uganda/2020/3 >.
Principle: [121] Leasehold – Leases on privately owned land – Where the parties agree to
exclude implied terms under the RTA, either party is estopped from invoking the
same in case of a dispute.
Held:
➢ Where the parties expressly agreed to a condition in their lease agreement, it would
follow that then that the implied covenant is specifically excluded from operation by
the agreement of the parties. The noting of re-entry in the instant application was an
error of law apparent on the face of record as the lease agreement was clear on that
situation of re-entry.
[122] In case the land is owned by the Kabaka, the lease is granted by the Kabaka of Buganda
as the registered proprietor managed by the BLB.
Where the land is owned by the Church, the lease is granted by the registered trustees of that
particular diocese.
In case the land in owned by the Church of Uganda (CoU), the lease is granted by the registered
trustees of the native CoU.
Where the land is owned by the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council, the lease will be granted by
the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council as a legal entity.
71 | P a g e
[123] Leasehold – Processing lease titles – s.54 and 59 of the RTA require registration of a lease
interest on the mother title. (mailo or freehold title). The lease must be properly executed by the
authorized persons and attested to by the authorized persons.
See: s.146(1): power of attorney (signing on behalf of a lessor); s.147 and 148: on who is to
witness and how to sign.
The lease instrument is registered primarily as an incumbrance on the white page & owner’s
copy of mailo or freehold title.
The lessee may apply to the CLR for the creation of a lease certificate of title.
The CLR will request the relevant district staff surveyors or the department of mappings and
surveys in Entebbe to cause deed prints/deed plana to be created for the land.
The lessee is then required to pay appropriate charges for creation of a title.
The land office will create two leasehold titles i.e., one is the white page for the lease and the
other is the owner’s copy (duplicate certificate of title/LRV.)
The above procedure does not apply to leases from DLBs or the ULC except where the ULC is
the registered proprietor of a freehold interest.
72 | P a g e

Land Transactions Kyazze Case Law Notes (Joseph Bill)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Land Transactions Kyazze Case Law Notes (Joseph Bill)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Land Transactions Kyazze Case Law Notes (Joseph Bill)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAW PAPERS

THE LAW OF LAND TRANSACTIONS JOSEPH KYAZZE CASE LAW

By Joseph Bill AINERUGABA

Para. Topic Sub-topic Case Case No.

[29] Lamulati Ssanyu Nakanwagi v Hajji 022

[52] Hajji Sulaiman Lule v Zamu 038

[79] Hilda Wilson Namusoke v Owalla 015

[101] Equitable Uganda Ecumenical Church Loan 056

Fr. Narsensio Begumisa & 3 Ors v Eric Tibebaga

Civil Appeal No. 17 / 2002

Court: Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo

Sourced by: < https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court-uganda/2004/18 >

At common law, a deed system was operational in a sense that acquisition of an

[32] Confirmation of boundaries of the land – The certificate of title contains a

[38] Confirmation of boundaries of the land – The certificate of title is deemed to be

[67] Effect of Registration on Certificate of Title – The certificate of title then

Whether the certificate of title relates to the suit land.

Ndimwibo Sande & 3 Ors v Allen Peace Ampaire

Civil Appeal No. 65/2011

Court: Court of Appeal at Kampala

Sourced by: < https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/court-appeal-uganda/2014/46 >

[77] Impeachment of Certificate of title & Grounds – Defence of Bonafide Purchaser

a) That he is possession of a genuine authentic COT.

➢ It suffices to describe a bona fide purchaser as a person who honestly intends to

Zion Construction Ltd v Abahaire David & 3 Ors

HCCS No. 241/2015

Court: High Court of Uganda at Kampala

Sourced by: < https://old.ulii.org/ug/judgment/hc-land-division/2017/5 >

How to know: Whenever a special certificate of title is issued, it is used on a white

[37] Confirmation of boundaries of the land – Upon issuance of a special certificate

[74] Impeachment of Certificate of title & Grounds – Fraud may be actual,

[80] Subdivision of land – Where a purchaser is interested in acquiring part of the

e) A survey requires approval of the relevant planning authority in accordance

Adrabo Stanley v Madira Jimmy

Civil Suits No. 24/2013

Court: High Court of Uganda at Arua

Sourced by: < https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/hc-land-division-uganda/2017/102 >

Kilama Tonny v Laker Caroline & Ors

Civil Appeal No. 021 of 2017

Court: High Court of Uganda at Gulu

Sourced by: < https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/high-court-uganda/2020/171 >

[1899] 2 Ch. 264

It is not a requirement that the consideration be adequate as long as it is sufficient.

➢ Acquiring land in contemplation of entering into a particular marriage was considered

Rosemary Nalubega v Jackson Kikayira

Civil Reference Appeal No. 40/2004

Erisa Lukwago v Bawa Singh & Anor

Mudiima Issa & 5 Ors v Elly Kayanja & 2 Ors

Civil suit 232/2009

Court: High Court of Uganda at Kampala

Sourced by: < https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/hc-land-division-uganda/2014/34 >

Principle: [10] Para. 9 (supra)

1. Whether the land physically exists

2. Whether land is located in the area described in the title.

3. Who is in occupation/possession of the land.

4. What are the physical encumbrances on the land.

a) Interests of bibanja holders

c) Rights of access, etc.

Global Capital Save 2004 Ltd v Alice Okiror and Anor

Court: Court of Appeal of Uganda at Kampala