Download

Uganda Judgment

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Kajubi & Another v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause 154 of 2024) [2025] UGHCLD 38 (21 February 2025)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court held that it would be a miscarriage of justice to vacate the caveat without hearing from the parties who lodged it, as they were not parties to the present application. The respondent, Commissioner Land Registration, was not the caveator and could not justify the existence of the caveat. The proper procedure is for the applicants to sue the caveators or their legal representatives, who must then justify why the caveat should not be vacated. Bringing the application against the Commissioner Land Registration was improper, and the application was dismissed accordingly.

Court disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Kajubi Duncun

Applicant Counsel: Chimwani Stephen

Kitenda Robinson Lincon (Administrators of the late Kajubi Solomon Mcgrey)

Applicant Counsel: Chimwani Stephen

Commissioner Land Registration

Respondent Counsel: Nakaziba Zurah

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether the caveat under instrument no. KLA 124022 on the suit land should be vacated.

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicants argued that the caveat was lodged by Hellen Namukabya, who had no interest in the land as determined by previous court decisions. They contended that all appeals by Namukabya were dismissed, and the administrator of the estate of the late Erisa Musoke had complied with court orders to transfer the land to the family of Kajubi Mcgrey. The respondent was requested to effect the transfer but declined due to the existence of the caveat.
Respondent
The respondent did not file an affidavit or written submissions. The respondent's position was that the transfer could not be effected due to the existence of the caveat lodged by third parties, and verification of the court order was sought from the relevant courts.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Sentongo Produce and Coffee Famers Limited & another Vs Rose Nakafuma Muyisa HCMC No.690/1999

    A caveat may only be lodged by a person with a legal or equitable interest in the land; otherwise, it is invalid.

  2. 02

    Section 123, Registration of Titles Act

    Section 123 of the Registration of Titles Act allows any person claiming an interest in land to lodge a caveat, but such caveat can be removed if it no longer affects the land.

  3. 03

    Section 129, Registration of Titles Act

    Section 129 of the Registration of Titles Act provides for removal or vacation of a caveat when it is no longer affecting the said land.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court held that it would be a miscarriage of justice to vacate the caveat without hearing from the parties who lodged it, as they were not parties to the present application. The respondent, Commissioner Land Registration, was not the caveator and could not justify the existence of the caveat. The proper procedure is for the applicants to sue the caveators or their legal representatives, who must then justify why the caveat should not be vacated. Bringing the application against the Commissioner Land Registration was improper, and the application was dismissed accordingly.

Obiter and limits

  • The primary objective of a caveat is to give the caveator temporary protection, not indefinite delay without action.
  • Proceeding to vacate a caveat without hearing from the caveators would be a miscarriage of justice.

Court disposition

application dismissed

  • The application is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Source and reliance status

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Judgment

[2025] UGHCLD 38

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

(LAND DIVISION)

MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 154 OF 2024

1. KAJUBI DUNCUN :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANTS

2. KITENDA ROBINSON LINCON (Administrators of the late Kajubi Solomon Mcgrey)

VERSUS

COMMISSIONER LAND REGISTRATION :::::::::::: RESPONDENT

BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE NALUZZE AISHA BATALA RULING

*Introduction:*

1. This ruling is in respect of an application brought under Section 33(Now section 37 of the revised laws) of the Judicature Act, Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 145(Now section 129 of the revised laws) of the Registration of Titles Act and Orders 52 Rules 1,2 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking for orders that;

- i) The Caveat lodged under instrument number KLA 124022 on the 5th March 1987 on land at Kibuga Block 5 Plot 22 Mulago Kyadondo be vacated/removed. - ii) Each party bears its costs.

*Applicant's evidence;*

- 2. The application is supported by an affidavit deponed by the 1st applicant which briefly states as follows; - i) That the 1st and the 2nd applicant have come to learn that Hellen Namukabya lodged a caveat under instrument no. KLA 124022 on the suit land. - ii) That Mrs Hellen Namukabya was sued in Civil Suit No.18 of 1989 in the High Court by Nelson Kawalya as administrator of the late Erisa Musoke who was the father of the late Kajubi Mcgrey. - iii) The High Court on the 16th of October 2000 decreed and ordered that Mrs Hellen Namukabya did not have any interest in the said land and a permanent injunction against her was issued.

- iv) That Hellen Namukabya filed Civil Appeal No.072 of 2001 which appeal was dismissed by court. - v) That Hellen Namukabya further filed Civil Appeal No.01 of 2011 in the supreme court and the same was dismissed. - vi) That on the 15th of March 2024 the High Court Family Division under Execution Misc. Application No.050 of 2023 made an order that the administrator of the estate of the late Erisa Musoke should sign transfer forms for the family of Kajubi Mcgrey. - vii) That the administrator of the estate of the late Erisa Musoke has complied with the said order and signed transfer forms in favor of the family of Kajubi Mcgrey. - viii) That on the 10th June we wrote to the respondent to effect the transfer as directed by court and respondent wrote to all the four courts to verify the authenticity of the said order. - ix) That the respondent has declined to effect the transfer because of the existence of a caveat lodged by Mrs Hellen Namukabya.

*Representation;*

3. The applicants were represented by Counsel Chimwani Stephen of M/S Lubega, Babu & Co. Advocates whereas the respondent was represented by Counsel Nakaziba Zurah. Only the applicants filed their affidavit and written submissions which I have considered in the determination of this application.

*Issues for determination;*

*Whether the caveat under instrument no. KLA 124022 on the suit land should be vacated?*

*Resolution and determination of the issue;*

- 4. It is a settled principle of law that for one to lodge a caveat he or she ought to have a legal or equitable interest in the land or any other caveatable interest that he or she seeks the caveat to protect otherwise the caveat would be invalid (*See; Sentongo Produce and Coffee Famers Limited & another Vs Rose Nakafuma Muyisa HCMC No.690/1999).* - 5. The primary objective of a caveat is to give the caveator temporary protection, it is not the intention of the law that the caveator should relax and sit back for eternity without taking actions and

![](_page_3_Picture_6.jpeg)

steps to handle the controversy so as to determine the thoughts of the parties affected by the existence of the caveat.

- 6. The registration of titles Act under section 123 is to the effect that a caveat may be lodged or withdrawn *"Any beneficiary or other person claiming any estate or interest in land under the operation of this Act or in any lease or mortgage under any unregistered instrument or by devolution in law or otherwise may lodge a caveat with the registrar in the form in the Fifteenth Schedule to this Act or as near to that as circumstances permit, forbidding the registration of any person as transferee or proprietor of and of any instrument affecting that estate or interest until after notice of the intended registration or dealing is given to the caveator, or unless the instrument is expressed to be subject to the claim of the caveator as is required in the caveat, or unless the caveator consents in writing to the registration".* - 7. The applicants bring this application under section 129 of the registration of titles act which is to the effect that a caveat can be removed or vacated when it's no longer affecting the said land.

- 8. I take note of the submissions of counsel for the applicants, upon perusal of the search certificate attached onto the application marked annexure "Q" it indicates that the caveat was lodged by Nakayenga, Y. Namukabya,Lwantale Esukanesi, and Wampamba Nasani vide instrument number KLA 124022 on the 5th day of March 1987. - 9. The said parties are not party to the instant application to justify why the said caveat should not be vacated by this court. The respondent in the instant application is not the caveator nor in the position to justify the existence of the said caveat. This court proceeding to vacate the said caveat without hearing from the parties who lodged the same would be a miscarriage of justice. - 10. Having regard to the law and decided cases, it is my decision that the proper course of action is for the applicant to sue the caveators where they will have to justify why the said caveat should not be vacated by court. - 11. I find it improper and incorrect to bring the instant application against the commissioner land registration instead of filing the same against the caveators or legal representatives of the same.

12. Therefore, the instant application is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

I SO ORDER.

NALUZZE AISHA BATALA

Ag. JUDGE

21/02/2025

Delivered Electronically via ECCMIS on the 21st day of

February 2025.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Sentongo Produce and Coffee Famers Limited & another Vs Rose Nakafuma Muyisa HCMC No.690/1999

Case cited

Section 33 (now section 37) Judicature Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 98 Civil Procedure Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 145 (now section 129) Registration of Titles Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Order 52 Rules 1, 2 & 3 Civil Procedure Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 123 Registration of Titles Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 129 Registration of Titles Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.