Share
Kolya v Nantongo and 2 Others (Misc Cause No. 39 of 2021) [2022] UGHCLD 12 (7 February 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] UGHCLD 12
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Kawesa, J
- Case number
- Misc Cause No. 39 of 2021
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Kawesa, J
- Case number
- Misc Cause No. 39 of 2021
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the respondents had demonstrated sufficient cause for the caveat to remain in place, specifically citing the existence of a pending appeal as referenced in the notice and application for proceedings. The court held that it would be premature to vacate the caveat at this stage, as maintaining the status quo is necessary to allow the Court of Appeal to resolve the pending appeal without interference. Therefore, the application to vacate the caveat was denied, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Court disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to vacate the caveat is denied.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Daudi Kolya
ApplicantChristine Nantongo
RespondentNamuddu Marjorie
Respondent Counsel: Muwangadu (represented by Moses Wacha)Commissioner Land Registration
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the caveat lodged by the respondents should be vacated from the applicant's land.
- 02
Whether the existence of a pending appeal justifies the retention of the caveat.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant seeks the removal of the caveat lodged by the respondents on the basis that the statutory period has lapsed and the respondents have not shown sufficient cause for its retention.
- Respondent
- The respondents argue that there is a pending appeal and have filed a notice and application for proceedings, thus the caveat should remain to preserve the status quo until the appeal is determined.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 140(1) of the Registration of Titles Act
A caveator must show cause why a caveat should not be removed after the statutory period lapses.
- 02
Judicial precedent and practice
Retention of the status quo is necessary where there is a pending appeal to prevent prejudice to the appellate process.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the respondents had demonstrated sufficient cause for the caveat to remain in place, specifically citing the existence of a pending appeal as referenced in the notice and application for proceedings. The court held that it would be premature to vacate the caveat at this stage, as maintaining the status quo is necessary to allow the Court of Appeal to resolve the pending appeal without interference. Therefore, the application to vacate the caveat was denied, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that the statutory framework requires a caveator to justify the continued existence of a caveat after the statutory period lapses.
- Premature removal of a caveat in the face of a pending appeal could undermine the appellate process.
Court disposition
application dismissed
- The application to vacate the caveat is denied.
- Each party shall bear its own 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 OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (LAND DIVISION) MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 0039 OF 2021
DAUDI KOLYA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. CHRISTINE NANTONGO
2. NAMUDDU MARJORIE
3. COMMISSIONER LAND REGISTRATION:::::::::::::::RESPONDENTS
BEFORE: HON MR. JUSTICE HENRY I. KAWESA
RULING
This is an application by way of Notice of Motion for orders that;
1. A caveat lodged by the Respondents vide Instrument No. KCCA-U007-0074090 on land comprised in Block 244 Plot 5198 Kisugu be vacated.
The application is opposed by the affidavit in reply of Marjorie Namuddu.
I have looked at the submissions. Under Section 140(1) of the Registration of Titles Act, the law requires that once a caveator files a caveat, the caveator has to show cause why the caveat should not be removed after the statutory period lapses.
In this particular case, the caveator has shown cause that there is a pending appeal as per the notice and application for proceedings referred to by the Respondents. This Court is satisfied that it is premature to vacate the caveate as it is necessary to retain the *status* quo to enable the Court of Appeal to first settle the appeal.
1 st Defendant pleaded in paragraph 3 of the written statement of defence that they would raise a preliminary objection on the competency of the suit, hence this application.
I do find merit in the application.
It is allowed.
Each party should bear its own costs.
I so order.
Henry I. Kawesa JUDGE 07/02/2022
......................................
07/02/2022:
Moses Wacha holding brief for Muwangadu for the Respondent.
Applicant in Court.
Respondent absent.
Counsel for Applicant absent.
Lydia: Court Clerk.
Moses: it is for Ruling.
Court:
Ruling read out in court in the presence of the parties present.
Sgd:
Ayo Miriam Okello
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
07/02/2022
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.