Share
Musisi v Kazibwe and Another (Misc Cause 89 of 2022) [2023] UGHCLD 174 (5 July 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] UGHCLD 174
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Nassuna Matovu, J
- Case number
- Misc Cause 89 of 2022
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Nassuna Matovu, J
- Case number
- Misc Cause 89 of 2022
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant is the registered proprietor of the land in question and that the caveat was lodged by the 1st respondent nearly 15 years ago. The caveator failed to take any steps to prove his claim or interest in the land and did not respond to the summons or file any reply. Caveats are meant to provide temporary relief, not indefinite restriction. In the absence of any substantiated claim or action by the caveator, the court determined that the caveat should be vacated to allow the registered proprietor to deal with his property.
Court disposition
application_granted
Orders
- The caveat lodged by Kazibwe Amos Sajja on Kibuga Block 5 Plot 1000 at Mulago is vacated.
- The applicant shall meet his own costs for this application.
02
Material facts
Parties
Abbas Musisi
ApplicantKazibwe Amos Sajja
RespondentCommissioner Land Registration
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the caveat lodged by the 1st respondent on the applicant's land can be vacated.
- 02
Whether the caveator has established any interest or claim in the land to justify maintaining the caveat.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that he is the registered owner of Kibuga Block 5 Plot 1000 at Mulago, and that the 1st respondent lodged a caveat on the land without any legitimate interest. The caveat has prevented the applicant from dealing with his property for nearly 15 years, and the caveator has taken no steps to substantiate any claim. The applicant seeks removal of the caveat to freely transact with his land.
- Respondent
- The respondents did not file any affidavit in reply nor did they appear in court to contest the application. No arguments were presented by the respondents.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 139, Registration of Titles Act
A beneficiary may lodge a caveat on registered land to forbid further dealings without notification.
- 02
Section 140, Registration of Titles Act
The Registrar must notify the registered proprietor of a lodged caveat, and the proprietor may summon the caveator to show cause why the caveat should not be removed.
- 03
General doctrine; see ruling text
Caveats are intended as temporary protection to allow the caveator to establish a claim, not to remain indefinitely on the register.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant is the registered proprietor of the land in question and that the caveat was lodged by the 1st respondent nearly 15 years ago. The caveator failed to take any steps to prove his claim or interest in the land and did not respond to the summons or file any reply. Caveats are meant to provide temporary relief, not indefinite restriction. In the absence of any substantiated claim or action by the caveator, the court determined that the caveat should be vacated to allow the registered proprietor to deal with his property.
Obiter and limits
- Caveats are not intended to stay on the register forever; their purpose is temporary protection to enable the caveator to establish a claim.
- Where a caveator fails to take steps to prove their interest for an extended period, the court will order removal to prevent undue restriction of the proprietor's rights.
Court disposition
application_granted
- The caveat lodged by Kazibwe Amos Sajja on Kibuga Block 5 Plot 1000 at Mulago is vacated.
- The applicant shall meet his own costs for this application.
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 UGANDAAT KAMPAI-A
LAND DIVISION
MISC. CAUSE NO. 89 OF 2022
ABBAS MUSISI APPLICANT
\. ERSUS
1. KAZTBWE AMOS SAJJA
BEFORE HO. I-ADY J USTICE FI-AVIA NASSUNA MATOVU 2. COMMISSIONER I-AND REGISTRATION...... RESPONDENTS. RULING
'l'he applicant filed this application seeking for removal of caveat that was lodged on land compriscd in ICbuga Block 5 l']lot 1000 at Mulago. It was filed under the provisions of S. 140 of the lLegistration of titles r\ct , S.98 of the Civil Procedurc Act and 0.52 rr land 2 of thc Civil Procedure Rules. It was brought by notice of motion which was supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant. I'he gtounds of the application wcre laid in the notice of motion and affidavit in support. Briefly the grounds werc that;
- a) -I'he applicant is the registered owner of land comprised in I(buga Block <sup>5</sup> Plot 1000 at Muiago. - b) The 1\*'Rcspondent lodged a caveat on thc said land evcn though hc docs not have any interest in the same. - c) The applicant is desirous of dealing with the said land but he cannot do so in Iight of the said caveat.
'Ihc Respondcnts werc duly sovcd with this application but did not filc any affidavit in tcply. Thc 1" ltcspondcnl was spccifically scrvcd by way of substituted scrvice.
'I'he applicant filcd writtcn submissions in this case which I have carefully srudied together with the relevant law. Having catcfully studied this cascfile I noted as follows:
- a) 'I'he applicant is thc rcgistcred proprietor of thc land in question having been registered as such on 8"'July 2008. - b) The 1" Respondent lodged a caveat on the said land on 31"'July 2008. - c) The 2"d I{espondent communicated to applicant by letter dated 22/6/2022, that this caveat could not be lapsed becausc it was a beneficiary's caveat.
'Iherefote, the issue to be dccided by this court is whethcr the caveat that was lodgcd by thc 1"'rcspondcnt on the land in qucstion can be vacated.
S.139 of the Registration of tides Act allows a beneficiary to lodge a caveat on registered Iand fotbidding further dealings on the land vzithout notifying him or her.
5.140 of the same Act requires thc Registrar of tities to noti\$r the tegistered proprietor that a cavcat has been lodged on his tide and thc proPrietor is expected to summon the caveator to attend bcforc court to show cause why the caveat should not be removed.
In the instant casc it is clear that after the registered proprietor who is the applicant learnt that 1" Respondent had lodged a c vcat on his land, hc filcd thc instant application whereupon thc 1.' l{espondcnt was summoncd Unfortunately, the l" Respondcnt neither filed any affidavit in reply nor appeared at court on the datc sct.
S.140 further ptovides that the court, may upon proof that thc caveatot has bccn summoned, make such order in the premises cxparte or otherwise.
In the case beforc mc it is clcar that the l" Respondent who is thc cavcator was scrved with this applicatiori as shown in thc affidavit of scrvice dated 10 /1,1' /2022 and filed at court on thc samc day.
I also note that the caveat was lodged on 31 /7 /2008 which is close to 15 years ago. There is nothing on record to show that after lodgang the said caveat, the 1"t applicant took any steps to further provc his claim or intcrest in the said land. Caveats arc intended to give temporary protection /rclie f to the caveator to enable him or her take ncccssary steps to establish his or her claim on the land . 'l'hcy are not intendcd to stay of the register for ever. In a case like the one before court, where a caveator has not taken any stcps after lodging the caveat 15 years ago, thc court would have no option but to ordcr its rcmoval so that the registcrcd proprietor can ably dcal with his land.
'l'his application is accordingly hercby granted and it is hereby ordered that thc caveat that was lodged on land comprised in I(ibuga Bkrck 5 Plot 1000 at Mulag<; by one I(azibwe Amos Sajja be vacated.
-fhc applicant shall mcct his costs lor this application.
DATED Kampala this.... Day of ( ........2023. HON. JUSTICE FLAVIA NASSUNA MATOVL]
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.