Download

Uganda Judgment

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Ssegirinya v Mutebi (Misc Application No. 081 of 2016) [2017] UGHCLD 254 (6 November 2017)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the Applicant is the registered proprietor of the land and that the Respondent failed to show any caveatable interest or reasonable cause for lodging the caveat. The Respondent did not file any affidavit in reply or provide evidence to justify the caveat. The law requires that a caveat should only be maintained where there is a legitimate interest, and the Respondent's failure to act or respond rendered the caveat baseless. The court relied on established principles that caveats are meant for temporary protection and not to frustrate the rights of registered proprietors. Consequently, the court ordered the removal of the caveat and awarded compensation to the Applicant for the wrongful lodging of the caveat.

Court disposition

application granted

Orders

  • The Respondent's caveat on the Applicant's land is removed.
  • The Respondent shall compensate the Applicant UGX 5,000,000 for lodging the caveat without reasonable cause.
  • The Respondent shall pay the costs of this application.

02

Material facts

Parties

Ssegirinya Gerald

Applicant Counsel: Ms. Namuleme Ann

Mutebi Innocent

Respondent Counsel: Mr. Oundo David

Amounts and remedies

  • Compensation Awarded to Applicant: UGX 5,000,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Applicant argued that he is the registered proprietor of the land in question and that the Respondent lodged a caveat without any caveatable interest, solely to frustrate the Applicant. The Applicant sought removal of the caveat and compensation for the wrongful lodging of the caveat.
Respondent
The Respondent did not file an affidavit in reply and did not present any arguments or evidence to show cause for maintaining the caveat.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Boynes v Gathure (1969) EA 385; Hunter Investments Ltd. v Lwanyaga & Anor, Misc. Cause No. 0034 of 2014

    The primary objective of a caveat is to provide temporary protection to the caveator, not to allow indefinite delay without action.

  2. 02

    Section 140(1) of the Registration of Titles Act

    A caveat may be removed if the caveator fails to show reasonable cause for its existence.

  3. 03

    Section 142 of the Registration of Titles Act

    A person who lodges a caveat without reasonable cause is liable to compensate the aggrieved party.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the Applicant is the registered proprietor of the land and that the Respondent failed to show any caveatable interest or reasonable cause for lodging the caveat. The Respondent did not file any affidavit in reply or provide evidence to justify the caveat. The law requires that a caveat should only be maintained where there is a legitimate interest, and the Respondent's failure to act or respond rendered the caveat baseless. The court relied on established principles that caveats are meant for temporary protection and not to frustrate the rights of registered proprietors. Consequently, the court ordered the removal of the caveat and awarded compensation to the Applicant for the wrongful lodging of the caveat.

Obiter and limits

  • The law does not intend for a caveator to sit back indefinitely without taking steps to resolve the controversy.
  • It is in the interest of justice that caveats without reasonable cause be removed to protect the rights of registered proprietors.

Court disposition

application granted

  • The Respondent's caveat on the Applicant's land is removed.
  • The Respondent shall compensate the Applicant UGX 5,000,000 for lodging the caveat without reasonable cause.
  • The Respondent shall pay the costs of 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.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Judgment

[2017] UGHCLD 254

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

(LAND DIVISION)

MISC APPLICATION NO. 081 OF 2016

SSEGIRINYA GERALD::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT

VERSUS

MUTEBI INNOCENT:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT

Before: HON. MR. JUSTICE HENRY I. KAWESA

RULING

The Applicant moved this Court by Notice of Motion for orders that;-

1. *The Respondent should show cause why the caveat which the Respondent lodged on the Applicant’s Land comprised in Mailo Register Kyadondo Block 167 Plot 256 situate at Kiwale (Kyetume) Gayaza, should not lapse.* 2. *The Respondent’s caveat be removed from the Applicant’s land.* 3. *The Respondent pays compensation/damages to the Applicant for lodging the aforesaid caveat without lawful reasonable cause.* 4. *The Respondent pays costs of this application.*

The application is supported by the affidavit of Ssegirinya Gerald. The grounds of this application were that;

1. *The Applicant is the registered proprietor of Land comprised in Mailo Register Kyadondo Block 167 Plot 256 situate at Kiwale (Kyetume Gayaza).* 2. *That in December 2015, the Applicant conducted a search in the* Land *Office and he discovered that the Respondent had lodged a caveat on the said land.* 3. *That the Applicant through her Lawyers of M/s. Lutakoome & Co. Advocates wrote to the Registrar of Titles at Wakiso Land Office while requesting for the removal of the said caveat and also moving the Registrar to notify the Respondents accordingly.*

Grounds 4,5,6,7,8 and 9 show that the Respondent does not have any caveatable interest in the land and merely lodged the caveat for purposes of frustrating the Applicant and it is in the interest of justice that the application should be allowed.

From the file and submissions by Counsel for the Applicant, it is a fact that the Respondent did not file an affidavit in reply.

It has been shown by the evidence as per the affidavit in support of the application deponed by Ssegirinya Gerald, that the Applicant is the registered proprietor of the land comprised in Mailo Register Block 167 Plot 256 – (Kyetume) Gayaza. That that he mounted a search in December 2015 and found that the Respondent had lodged a caveat on the said land (*see paragraph 9 and 10)*. He inquired from the Respondents (paragraph 11), but the Respondents have not heeded to his inquiry.

The Applicant further depones in paragraph 12 that the Respondent has been all along aware that he is the registered proprietor. He further contends under paragraph 15 and 16 that the Respondent does not have any caveatable interest in the said land, but lodged the caveat for purposes of frustrating his interests.

The law governing caveats is well articulated in *Boynes versus Gathure (1969) EA 385* as cited in *Hunter Investments Ltd. versus Lwanyaga & Anor; Misc. Cause No. 0034 of 2014* *(as provided);*

*‘that the primary objectives 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 positive steps to handle the controversy, so as to determines the rights of the parties affected by its existence’.*

In this case, I agree with Counsel for the Applicant that the Respondent, having failed to show cause why the caveat he lodged on the land should not be removed. This is a right case for dealing with as provided for under section 140(1) of the Registration of Titles Act.

This Court therefore finds that the Applicant has proved this application. It has been proved that no reasonable cause has been shown by the Respondent as to why he filed the caveat. He is accordingly liable for compensation for lodging a caveat without reasonable cause as per Section 142 of the Registration of Titles Act.

The Respondent will therefore compensate the Applicant shs. 5,000,000/- (*five million)* only as compensation for the time wasted, pain and suffering caused to the Applicant by the Respondents’ caveating of this land under Section 140 (1)(2) of the Registration of Titles Act.

The Application is granted with costs.

I so order.

…………………………

Henry I. Kawesa

JUDGE

06/11/2017

06/11/2017:

Ms. Namuleme Ann for the Applicant

Mr. Oundo David for the Respondent.

Ms. Ann Nalumenya for the Respondent.

Applicant present.

Clerk: Irene Nalunkuuma.

Court: Ruling delivered in chambers.

………………………..

Emukol Samuel

Deputy Registrar

06/11/2017

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.

Boynes v Gathure (1969) EA 385

Case cited

Hunter Investments Ltd. v Lwanyaga & Anor, Misc. Cause No. 0034 of 2014

Case cited

Registration of Titles Act, Section 140(1)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Registration of Titles Act, Section 142

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.