Share
Nabukalu A.K.A Betty Nabukalu v Najjuma and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. I24 of 2024) [2025] UGHCLD 100 (24 June 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] UGHCLD 100
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Kaahwa, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Cause No. I24 of 2024
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Kaahwa, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Cause No. I24 of 2024
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application was unopposed, and the documentary evidence, including the translated agreement, established that the parties had agreed to subdivide the suit property. The applicant's averments were uncontroverted due to the respondents' failure to file a reply. The court found sufficient grounds to grant the subdivision and ordered the creation of a separate certificate of title for the applicant's interest, relying on the principle that unchallenged affidavits are accepted as true and the parties' documented agreement to subdivide the land.
Court disposition
application_granted
Orders
- Certificate of Title for land comprised in Mengo Kyadondo Block 244 Plot 4400 at Kisugu registered in the names of the applicant and respondents shall be subdivided to create a separate interest for the applicant.
- A separate Certificate of Title for the applicant shall be processed and registered in the applicant's name.
- The second respondent shall surrender the Duplicate Certificate of Title for Kyadondo Block 244 Plot 4400 to the third respondent to enable implementation.
- Respondents shall sign mutation forms, transfer forms, and all necessary documents in favour of the applicant required to subdivide and process the Certificate of Title for the said interest.
- Alternatively, the Commissioner Land Registration is ordered to effect subdivision and creation of the Certificate of Title for the applicant's interest.
- No order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Nabukalu Betty A. K. A Betty Nabukalu
Applicant Counsel: Springs AdvocatesNajjuma Ruth
RespondentNkumbi Kyobe Steven
RespondentCommissioner Land Registration
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the application discloses sufficient grounds to grant the subdivision of the suit plot.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant asserts that she and the first and second respondents are beneficiaries of the estate of their late mother, Juliana Nalumansi, and were bequeathed the suit land in equal shares. The parties agreed to demarcate and separate each one's interest physically on the ground in equal proportions. The certificate of title is in the custody of the second respondent, who has declined to surrender it, preventing the applicant from subdividing her interest. The applicant seeks orders for subdivision and issuance of a separate certificate of title for her share.
- Respondent
- The respondents did not file any reply or submissions to the application.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
David Lubuuka v Fred Joel Nsobya Misc. Application 358 of 2016; Gandesha and Another v G. J. Lutaaya SCCA No.14 of 1989
Failure to file an affidavit in reply leaves the applicant's averments uncontroverted and taken as accepted.
- 02
Order 12 rule 3(2), Civil Procedure Rules, SI 71-1
Order 12 rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules requires an affidavit in reply to be filed within 15 days from service of the application.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application was unopposed, and the documentary evidence, including the translated agreement, established that the parties had agreed to subdivide the suit property. The applicant's averments were uncontroverted due to the respondents' failure to file a reply. The court found sufficient grounds to grant the subdivision and ordered the creation of a separate certificate of title for the applicant's interest, relying on the principle that unchallenged affidavits are accepted as true and the parties' documented agreement to subdivide the land.
Obiter and limits
- The court clerk translated the agreement attached to the affidavit, confirming the parties' intention to subdivide the plot.
- The Land Division is heavily encumbered with numerous interlocutory applications, justifying extension of time for determination.
Court disposition
application_granted
- Certificate of Title for land comprised in Mengo Kyadondo Block 244 Plot 4400 at Kisugu registered in the names of the applicant and respondents shall be subdivided to create a separate interest for the applicant.
- A separate Certificate of Title for the applicant shall be processed and registered in the applicant's name.
- The second respondent shall surrender the Duplicate Certificate of Title for Kyadondo Block 244 Plot 4400 to the third respondent to enable implementation.
- Respondents shall sign mutation forms, transfer forms, and all necessary documents in favour of the applicant required to subdivide and process the Certificate of Title for the said interest.
- Alternatively, the Commissioner Land Registration is ordered to effect subdivision and creation of the Certificate of Title for the applicant's interest.
- 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. I24 OF 2024
NABUKALU BETTY A. K. A BETTY NABUKALU VERSUS APPLICANT
I. NAJJUMA RUTH 2. NKUMBI KYOBE STEVEN 3. COMMISSIONER LAND REGISTRATION: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : RESPONDENTS
BEFORE LADY JUSTICE CHRISTINE KAAHWA
RULING.
Introduction.
This application is brought under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, (CPA), Cap,282 and Order 5lruIe (1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, SI 7l-1 (CPR) for Orders that;
- a. Certificate of Title for land comprised in Mengo Kyadondo Block 244 Plot 4400 land at Kisugu registered in the names of the Applicant and the Respondents be subdivided to create a separate interest for the applicant. - b. A separate Certificate of Title for the applicant be created processed and registered into the names of the applicant.

- c. The 2'd respondent be ordered to surrender the Duplicate certificate of Title for Kyadondo Block244 Plot 4400 land at Kisugu to the 3'd Respondent to enable implementation of the said effects. - d. The respondents be ordered to sign mutation forms, transfer forms and all necessary documents in favour of the applicant required to subdivide and process Certificate of Title for the said interest or in the altemative - e. An Order be granted to the Commissioner Land Registration to effect subdivision and creation of the Certifrcate of Title for the Applicant's said interest. - f. Costs be provided for.
The application is supported by the affidavit of Nabukalu Betty, a beneficiary of the estate of the late Juliana Nalumansi deposed on 8'h day of August 2024.
Reply.
The Respondents did not file any reply to the application
Representation and hearing.
The Applicant was represented by Springs Advocates. Directions for filing submissions were issued on the 9th of May, 2025 and none of the parties filed submissions.
Issue for determination.
Whether the application discloses sufficient grounds to grant the subdivision of the suit plot.
Determination.
In this application, the Applicant avers that she and the l't and 2nd respondents are beneficiaries of the estate of their mother late Juliana Nalumansi; by a Will
Kutot\ dF.\ u";
dated 2nd October 2003, the applicant and the I't and 2nd respondents were bequeathed the suit land measuring 0. l2 Hectares in equal shares; and are now the registered proprietors to the said land; the parties agreed to demarcate and separate each one's interest physically on the ground in equal proportions; the certificate of title is in the custody of the 2nd respondent and the applicant is desirous of subdividing off her interests from the Title which the 2nd Respondent has declined to
I have perused the documents attached to the affidavit in support of the applicahon and take note that the certificate of title is registered in the names of Nabukalu Betty, Najjuma Ruth and Nkumbi Kyobe Steven as at 2810412010. The land was formerly registered in the names of the administrators of the late Nalumansi Juliana vide Administration Cause HCT-00-CV-AC-823 of 2008.
The agreement on the proposed subdivision of the suit property is attached and marked B. I observe that is not translated as required by taw, however my court clerk has translated the agreement and it is correct that the parties agreed to subdivide the plot.
Order 12 ruie 3(2) of the CPR provides that an affidavit in reply shall be filed within l5 days from the date of service of the application. This application was not fixed and completed with the 45 days as prescribed by rule 4 thereof, I duly extend the time for determination in light of the fact that the Land Division is heavily encumbered with numerous interlocutory applications.
In the Court of Appeal case of David Lubuuka v Fred Joel Nsobya Misc. Application 358 of 2016 where the Court of Appeal cited with approval Gandesha and Another versus G. J. Lutaaya SCCA No.l4 of 1989; where it was held that the failure to file an affidavit in reply leaves the averments of the
ob\"l62> F'
applicant in his affidavit in support of the application uncontroverted and therefore taken as accepted.
Since there is no opposition to this application and upon perusal of the agreement marked as annex "B" to the affidavit in support of the application, which shows that the parties herein agreed that they divide the suit property, I am inclined to grant this application with no order to costs.
Dated at Kampala this 24th day of June 2025.
(-
Christine Kaahwa
JUDGE
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.