[2021] UGHC 31
The application for a vesting order was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide sufficient proof of the vendor's death, such as a death certificate or a search report from the lands office. The court held that a mere letter from the Local Chairperson does not constitute adequate proof of death. Without...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] UGHC 31
- Parties
- Applicant: Kalule Duncan; Respondent: Commissioner Land Registration
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Cause No. 6 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- Ojok, J
- Legal Topics
- Vesting Order, Transfer of Land, Proof of Death, Registration of Titles, Possession of Land
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kalule Duncan
Applicant
Commissioner Land Registration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a vesting order for transfer of the suit property.
- 2 Whether sufficient proof of the vendor's death and compliance with statutory requirements was provided.
Ratio Decidendi
The application for a vesting order was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide sufficient proof of the vendor's death, such as a death certificate or a search report from the lands office. The court held that a mere letter from the Local Chairperson does not constitute adequate proof of death. Without meeting the statutory and case law requirements for a vesting order, the applicant's request could not be granted.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for a vesting order is dismissed.
- Right of appeal explained.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
#### **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**
#### **IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MPIGI**
#### **MISC. CAUSE 06 OF 2019**
**KALULE DUNCAN:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT**
#### **VERSUS**
#### **COMMISSIONER LAND REGISTRATION:::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT**
#### **BEFORE:HON. JUSTICE OYUKO ANTHONY OJOK**
#### 10 **JUGDMENT**
#### **Background**
This is an application brought under S. 167 of the Registration of Titles Act, S. 83 and S.98 of the Civil Procedure Act, O.52 r1-3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application seeks for orders that a vesting order be issued directing the Respondent to transfer the suit property comprised in Mawokota Block 56, Plot 119, Mbazi.
The grounds of the application are set out in the Notice of Motion supported by an affidavit of **Kalule Duncan** of C/o M/s Joseph Kiryowa& Co. Advocates, the grounds are as follows;
1. That by an agreement dated 15 20 th November, 2008KakairaNamungo the registered proprietorbought land at 5.000.000/= (Five Million Shillings) which was wholly paid to the vendor at the time of executing the agreement.
- 2. That at the time of purchase, the vender's land was being sub divided and so we could not tell the exact plot for the land he had sold. - 3. That the vendor signed theTransfer Forms for me, however on presenting the same for transferring the land, it was rejected by the Registrar of Titles and I was ordered to produce the vender who had signed the Transfer Forms for me as the signatures differed. - 4. That at the time the vendor was very ill and bed ridden I failed to take him 10 to the land office. - 5. The vendor ultimately died before signing for a new Transfer Forms and or taking him to the land office and Registrar of Title refused to transfer the suit land into my names and even returned the Duplicate Certificate of Title back to me. - 6. That I took possession of the suit land in 2018 to date with knowledge of the vendor and his family and my possession has never been challenged or contested. - 7. That I planted pine trees on the suit land in 2008 and the forest is still there - 20 8. That it is in the interest of justice that this application is allowed and a vesting order directing the respondent to transfer the land into the names of the Applicant.
I therefore pray that Court issues a vesting order.
# **Representation**
Upon hearing of this Application the applicant was represented, while the respondent was not represented.
### **Submissions**
Counsel for the Applicant submitted orally
## **Resolution by Court.**
It's trite law that before the Applicant invokes the inherent jurisdiction of Court under **S.98 of the Civil procedure Act Cap 71**, in anapplication of this nature, he/she must have applied first to the Commissioner landRegistration /Registrar who for some reasons must have declined to exercise his or her power under **S.167 of the Registration of Titles Act.**
In the case of **Aida NajjembaVs Ester MpagiMis. Appn no. 74/2005** lays down the 10 grounds for a vesting order thus;
- *a) The vender is deceased and there is proof of death.* - *b) Transfer is not effected.* - *c) The applicant paid the full purchase price.* - *d) The applicant took possession.* - *e) The agreement that the Applicant bought the land and there is no mortgage.* - *f) That the land is registered under the Registration of Titles Act.* - *g) That the relatives of the deceased have no problem with the Applicant obtaining the order."*
In the instant case, proof of death and a search report from lands was not availed by 20 the applicant and as such, the order sought cannot be granted.
Be it as it may, a mere letter from the Local Chairperson cannot be regarded as proof that the vendor died , there is no search report from lands and a copy of the death certificate to confirm that the vendor is dead.
Therefore this application is dismissed.
Right of Appeal explained.
**………………………………………………..**
# **HON JUSTICE OYUKO ANTHONY OJOK**
# **JUDGE**
*Dated this 30th day of March 2021*