Uganda Case Law

Mugasa Grace Adyeeri v Commissioner Land Registration

Mugasa Grace Adyeeri v Commissioner Land Registration (Civil Appeal No. 710 of 2024) [2025] UGCA 240 (21 July 2025)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 710 of 2024

Judge

Byaruhanga Jesse Rugyema, JA/JCC, Esta Nambayo, JA/JCC, Stella Alibateese, JA/JCC

The Court of Appeal found that the complaint before the Commissioner Land Registration was based on allegations of fraud against Mayombwe Muhamudu in the acquisition and transfer of the suit land. According to established legal principles, the Registrar of Titles does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate matters involving fraud; such matters must be determined by the High Court where evidence can be properly tested. The Registrar's cancellation of the Appellant's title, without providing adequate reasons and without a complaint specifically against her title, was procedurally improper and viol…

Source excerpt

• Cancellation Of Title
• Fraud In Land Registration
• Judicial Review
• Registrar Powers
• Natural Justice

Wakigiri v Mukomazi and Another

Wakigiri v Mukomazi and Another (Civil Suit No. 33 of 2020) [2025] UGHC 216 (18 April 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit No. 33 of 2020

Judge

Tweyanze, J

The High Court at Masaka dismissed a land ownership claim, upheld the defendants’ title, found the plaintiff’s entry to be trespass, and awarded damages and an injunction on the counter-claim.

• Customary Tenancy
• Adverse Possession
• Fraud In Land Registration
• Limitation Of Actions
• Trespass To Land
• Customary-tenancy

Namubiru v Launde

Namubiru v Launde (Civil Suit 2160 of 2016) [2025] UGHCLD 33 (24 February 2025)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit 2160 of 2016

Judge

Naluzze Aisha Batala, J

Both certificates of title, Kyadondo Block 267 Plot 634 (Plaintiff) and Kyadondo Block 269 Plot 192 (Defendant), are valid and distinct. The Plaintiff's title was lawfully acquired and processed, with no evidence of fraud presented by the Defendant. No easement or right of access for the Defendant is registered on the Plaintiff's title, and the Defendant failed to prove entitlement to such. The Defendant unlawfully trespassed upon the Plaintiff's land by encroaching, destroying property, and depriving her of possession and rental income. The Plaintiff did not acquiesce in the Defendant's cons…

Source excerpt

• Land Title Validity
• Fraud In Land Registration
• Easement Rights
• Trespass To Land
• Estoppel
• Damages For Land Trespass

Rwabigongi and Another v Kyomugisha (HCT-05-CV-CS 14 of 2020)

Rwabigongi and Another v Kyomugisha (HCT-05-CV-CS 14 of 2020) [2025] UGHC 66 (20 February 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-05-CV-CS 14 of 2020

Judge

Allan Nshimye, J

The court found that the suit was not time barred, as it was filed within three years of the registration of the suit land in the name of Tayebwa Stephen. On the substantive issues, the court determined that Tayebwa Stephen committed fraud by omitting to disclose the 1st plaintiff's occupation and interest in the land when applying for freehold title, thereby misleading the Area Land Committee and defeating the 1st plaintiff's unregistered interest. The evidence established that the 1st plaintiff, Teera Violet Rwabigongi, purchased part of the land from Mwesigye Kosiya in 1985, when Tayebwa S…

Source excerpt

• Land Ownership Disputes
• Fraud In Land Registration
• Customary To Freehold Conversion
• Family Land Distribution

Homs Company Ltd v Ssempereza and Another

Homs Company Ltd v Ssempereza and Another (miscellaneous Application no. 322 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1214 (25 September 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

miscellaneous Application no. 322 of 2024

Judge

Nabakooza, J

The court found that the doctrine of res-judicata did not apply because the previous suit (Misc. Cause No. 96 of 2022) was for judicial review and did not determine the substantive issues of fraud or ownership of the suit land. On limitation, the court held that the limitation period for actions based on fraud runs from the date of discovery, which was pleaded as October 2019, making the suit filed in 2022 timely. The court determined that the amended plaint disclosed a reasonable cause of action, as it alleged the Respondents' right to the land, its violation through fraudulent transfers, an…

Source excerpt

• Res Judicata
• Limitation Periods
• Cause Of Action
• Fraud In Land Registration
• Administration Of Estates

Opolot v Kumi University and 4 Others

Opolot v Kumi University and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 143 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 820 (30 August 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 143 of 2023

Judge

Adonyo, J

The High Court allowed an application to amend a plaint to add a prayer for cancellation of title and to join additional parties in a land dispute.

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Joinder Of Parties
• Cancellation Of Certificate Of Title
• Fraud In Land Registration
• Amendment-of-pleadings
• Joinder-of-parties

Nalunga v Munyagwa & Another

Nalunga v Munyagwa & Another (Miscellaneous Application 159 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 547 (14 June 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 159 of 2024

Judge

Nakachwa, J

The High Court allowed an application to join a beneficiary as a defendant, holding that her interest in the disputed land could be affected and joinder would avoid multiple suits.

• Joinder Of Parties
• Beneficial Interest
• Estate Administration
• Fraud In Land Registration
• Joinder-of-parties
• Land-disputes

Kibirige v Commissioner Land Registration

Kibirige v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Application 79 of 2023) [2024] UGHCLD 127 (13 May 2024)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 79 of 2023

Judge

Nkonge, J

The court found that the applicant's request for mandamus was premature and speculative because there was no evidence that the certificate of title had been found or declared to be illegally or wrongfully obtained as required under Section 91(2) of the Land Act. The allegations of fraud against Haruna Muwanga Kalule, who was not a party to the application, were serious and required specific pleading and strict proof in a formal suit, not affidavit evidence in a miscellaneous application. The court further held that the Commissioner Land Registration lacked the statutory power to cancel the ti…

Source excerpt

• Rectification Of Register
• Mandamus
• Fraud In Land Registration
• Title Cancellation

Syanywana Kasereka and 2 Others v Registrar of Titles and Another (HCT-01-LD-CS 21 of 2013)

Syanywana Kasereka and 2 Others v Registrar of Titles and Another (HCT-01-LD-CS 21 of 2013) [2024] UGHC 404 (19 April 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-01-LD-CS 21 of 2013

Judge

Wagona, J

The court found that while the plaintiffs had occupied and used the suit land for a long time, their methods of acquisition—through area chiefs or informal arrangements—did not confer customary or lawful occupancy under the prevailing law (Land Reform Decree 1975, Public Lands Act 1969). The evidence did not establish that any plaintiff held a recognized customary or statutory interest. The lease and certificate of title issued to Amon Bazira in 1982 were not proved to have been obtained by fraud or illegality attributable to him; the plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence from the Uganda Land…

Source excerpt

• Customary Tenure
• Leasehold Title
• Eviction Procedure
• Fraud In Land Registration
• Public Land Allocation

Bukaalamye & Another v Sensuwa

Bukaalamye & Another v Sensuwa (Miscellaneous Application 3868 of 2023) [2024] UGHCLD 93 (4 April 2024)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 3868 of 2023

Judge

Naluzze Aisha Batala, J

The court found that both the applicants and the respondent had established prima facie cases and that it was not possible, at the interlocutory stage, to determine whether the respondent's suit was frivolous, vexatious, time barred, or lacking locus standi without delving into the merits of the main suit. The applicants failed to provide evidence that the respondent would be unable to pay costs if the suit was decided in their favour; mere speculation about the respondent's age, income, or assets was insufficient. The court emphasized that poverty or lack of known assets alone does not justi…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Limitation Of Actions
• Locus Standi
• Fraud In Land Registration