Share
Kalangabusa ( Experte) (Miscellaneous Cause No. 8 of 2018) [2021] UGHCLD 469 (23 April 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] UGHCLD 469
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Nkonge, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Cause No. 8 of 2018
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Nkonge, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Cause No. 8 of 2018
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application was denied because the applicant failed to provide essential documentary evidence, including the sale agreement and proof of payment, to support his claim for transfer of the land title. The absence of a certificate of title or search statement prevented the court from verifying the ownership status of the land and the entitlement of the applicant. Additionally, the vendor, Paulo Kyasi, was not made a party to the application, and there was insufficient demonstration of efforts to trace him. Without these critical elements, the court could not grant the remedies sought.
Court disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for substitution of names on the land title is denied.
- No order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Kalangabusa Emmanuel
Applicant Counsel: M/S Katongole & Co. AdvocatesPaulo Kyasi
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Purchase Price Stated in Agreement: UGX 50,000
- Balance Allegedly Unpaid: UGX 48,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Exparte Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has provided sufficient documentary evidence to support the claim for transfer of land title.
- 02
Whether the applicant has demonstrated payment of the purchase price and entitlement to the land.
- 03
Whether the absence of the vendor or his relatives affects the applicant's entitlement to the remedies sought.
- 04
Whether the applicant has made adequate efforts to trace the registered owner.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that he purchased land comprised on Block 695 Plot 3 in Luweero district from Paulo Kyasi in 1979, paid part of the agreed purchase price, and has been unable to trace the vendor to pay the balance. He seeks a court order to substitute his name for that of Paulo Kyasi on the title deed and guidance on where to deposit the balance of the purchase price.
- Respondent
- No respondent argument was presented as the application was ex parte and Paulo Kyasi was not made a party to the proceedings.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Uganda Registration of Titles Act
A party seeking transfer of land title must provide documentary proof of purchase and ownership.
- 02
Uganda Registration of Titles Act, Section 59
Court orders for substitution of names on land titles require clear evidence of entitlement and compliance with statutory requirements.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application was denied because the applicant failed to provide essential documentary evidence, including the sale agreement and proof of payment, to support his claim for transfer of the land title. The absence of a certificate of title or search statement prevented the court from verifying the ownership status of the land and the entitlement of the applicant. Additionally, the vendor, Paulo Kyasi, was not made a party to the application, and there was insufficient demonstration of efforts to trace him. Without these critical elements, the court could not grant the remedies sought.
Obiter and limits
- The absence of supporting documents undermines the credibility of the applicant's claim.
- Making the registered owner a party to such applications is essential for proper adjudication.
- Efforts to trace the vendor should be clearly demonstrated in applications seeking transfer of title.
Court disposition
application dismissed
- The application for substitution of names on the land title is denied.
- No order 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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
LAND DIVISION
MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 008 OF 2018
KALANGABUSA EMMANUEL ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
BEFORE: LADY JUSTICE ALEXANDRA NKONGE RUGADYA
RULING: (EXPARTE)
Introduction:
This application (exparte) seeks an order directing the Registrar of the Land Office of Luwero District at Bukalasa to:
- 1. substitute the names Paulo Kyasi with that of KALANGABUSA of the title deed comprised on Block 695 Plot 3 land at Kanyogoga Luweero district; - 2. issue appropriate orders as to where the balance of the purchase price should be deposited; and
3. *the costs of this application be provided for.*
Grounds of application:
The grounds of the application are laid out in the affidavit of the applicant Mr. Kalangabusa Emmanuel. $25$
1<br>Umbarg
$\mathsf{S}$
Briefly:
$\mathsf{S}$
He contends that he bought land comprised on Block 695 Plot 3 land at Kawula and Kanyogoga Bulemezi County, Luweero district from one Paulo Kyasi of Kyadondo, the then registered proprietor in 1979, measuring 30 acres (a copy of the purchase agreement (Luganda language and its English translation (annexed and marked "A"), at a consideration of *Ugx* 50,000/= (fifty thousand. He paid *Ugx* 48,000/= (forty eight thousand remained with some balance which was to be paid on 12/12/1979.
He further claims to have carried out a thorough search to trace the said Paulo Kyasi or his known relatives, with a purpose of paying the balance but after the war, the vendor could not be traced and the balance could not be therefore be paid to him..
That a search was made in Bukalasa land office and the search results showed that the names of the vendor, Paulo Kyasi, appeared on the original land title and the same had no encumbrances.
That the process of obtaining a land in Bulemezi Block 695, Plot 3 and to change the same into his names could not be properly effected without being granted a court order, which he now seeks in this application.
The application was represented by the firm of *M/S Katongole & Co. Advocates*.
Consideration of the issue:-
The applicant seeks an order (among others) to transfer land from the names of Paulo Kyasi to those of the applicant, for the land comprised in Block 695, Plot 3, land at 20 Kanyogoga, Luweero; and for an appropriate order as to where the balance of purchase price should be deposited.
I have carefully read the application and submissions of counsel and I note that the application lacks supporting documents, some of which were referred to in the affidavit
in support of the application. 25
> The applicant in *paragraph 3* of the affidavit, referred to a sale agreement made in 1979 between him and Kyasi, by which part payment of *Ugx 50,000* had been paid, leaving a balance of *Ugx 48,000/=*. This agreement was not however annexed to the affidavit.
Unboy
The applicant failed to provide any proof therefore that payment had been made as purchase price for the suit land. Furthermore, he did not avail to court any documentary proof of ownership by him or Paulo Kyasi whom he claimed to be the current registered owner of the land comprised in block 695 plot 3, land at Kawula and Kanyogoga.
The said Paulo Kyasi was not even made party to this application. Without any copy of $\mathsf{S}$ certificate of title or search statement, it was neither possible to ascertain if Kyasi was the actual owner of that land nor establish the current status of that land.
With the above missing information, it cannot be concluded that a valid transfer had been that would entitle the applicant to the remedies sought in this application.
Finally, the applicant has not demonstrated what effort he has made to establish the 10 whereabouts of the registered owner, Mr. Paulo Kyasi.
For those reasons therefore, I decline to grant this application.
No order to costs.
Alexandra Nkonge Rugadya
JUDGE
19/4/2021 20
Delivered by earl $23/4/2021$
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.